Defining Textbook Outcome in liver surgery and assessment of hospital variation: A nationwide population-based study.

INTRODUCTION: Textbook outcome (TO) is a composite outcome measure covering the surgical care process in a single outcome measure. TO has an advantage over single outcome parameters with low event rates, which have less discriminating impact to detect differences between hospitals. This study aimed to assess factors associated with TO, and evaluate hospital and network variation after case-mix correction in TO rates for liver surgery. METHODS: This was a population-based retrospective study of all patients who underwent liver resection for malignancy in the Netherlands in 2019 and 2020. TO was defined as absence of severe postoperative complications, mortality, prolonged length of hospital stay, and readmission, and obtaining adequate resection margins. Multivariable logistic regression was used for case-mix adjustment. RESULTS: 2376 patients were included. TO was accomplished in 1380 (80%) patients with colorectal liver metastases, in 192 (76%) patients with other liver metastases, in 183 (74%) patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and 86 (51%) patients with biliary cancers. Factors associated with lower TO rates for CRLM included ASA score ≥3 (aOR 0.70, CI 0.51-0.95 p = 0.02), extrahepatic disease (aOR 0.64, CI 0.44-0.95, p = 0.02), tumour size >55 mm on preoperative imaging (aOR 0.56, CI 0.34-0.94, p = 0.02), Charlson Comorbidity Index ≥2 (aOR 0.73, CI 0.54-0.98, p = 0.04), and major liver resection (aOR 0.50, CI 0.36-0.69, p < 0.001). After case-mix correction, no significant hospital or oncological network variation was observed. CONCLUSION: TO differs between indications for liver resection and can be used to assess between hospital and network differences.

Nationwide oncological networks for resection of colorectal liver metastases in the Netherlands: Differences and postoperative outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: Widespread differences in patient demographics and disease burden between hospitals for resection of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) have been described. In the Netherlands, networks consisting of at least one tertiary referral centre and several regional hospitals have been established to optimize treatment and outcomes. The aim of this study was to assess variation in case-mix, and outcomes between these networks. METHODS: This was a population-based study including all patients who underwent CRLM resection in the Netherlands between 2014 and 2019. Variation in case-mix and outcomes between seven networks covering the whole country was evaluated. Differences in case-mix, expected 30-day major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo ≥3a) and 30-day mortality between networks were assessed. RESULTS: In total 5383 patients were included. Thirty-day major morbidity was 5.7% and 30-day mortality was 1.5%. Significant differences between networks were observed for Charlson Comorbidity Index, ASA 3+, previous liver resection, liver disease, preoperative MRI, preoperative chemotherapy, ≥3 CRLM, diameter of largest CRLM ≥55 mm, major resection, combined resection and ablation, rectal primary tumour, bilobar and extrahepatic disease. Uncorrected 30-day major morbidity ranged between 3.3% and 13.1% for hospitals, 30-day mortality ranged between 0.0% and 4.5%. Uncorrected 30-day major morbidity ranged between 4.4% and 6.0% for networks, 30-day mortality ranged between 0.0% and 2.5%. No negative outliers were observed after case-mix correction. CONCLUSION: Variation in case-mix and outcomes are considerably smaller on a network level as compared to a hospital level. Therefore, auditing is more meaningful at a network level and collaboration of hospitals within networks should be pursued.

Minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy (LEOPARD): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Observational cohort studies have suggested that minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) is associated with better short-term outcomes compared with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP), such as less intraoperative blood loss, lower morbidity, shorter length of hospital stay, and reduced total costs. Confounding by indication has probably influenced these findings, given that case-matched studies failed to confirm the superiority of MIDP. This accentuates the need for multicenter randomized controlled trials, which are currently lacking. We hypothesize that time to functional recovery is shorter after MIDP compared with ODP even in an enhanced recovery setting. METHODS: LEOPARD is a randomized controlled, parallel-group, patient-blinded, multicenter, superiority trial in all 17 centers of the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Group. A total of 102 patients with symptomatic benign, premalignant or malignant disease will be randomly allocated to undergo MIDP or ODP in an enhanced recovery setting. The primary outcome is time (days) to functional recovery, defined as all of the following: independently mobile at the preoperative level, sufficient pain control with oral medication alone, ability to maintain sufficient (i.e. >50%) daily required caloric intake, no intravenous fluid administration and no signs of infection. Secondary outcomes are operative and postoperative outcomes, including clinically relevant complications, mortality, quality of life and costs. DISCUSSION: The LEOPARD trial is designed to investigate whether MIDP reduces the time to functional recovery compared with ODP in an enhanced recovery setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch Trial Register, NTR5188 . Registered on 9 April 2015.