The Intervention Selection Toolbox to improve patient-relevant outcomes: an implementation and qualitative evaluation study in colorectal cancer surgery.

BACKGROUND: The concept of value-based healthcare is being used worldwide to improve healthcare. The Intervention Selection Toolbox was developed to bridge the gap of value-based healthcare, between insights in outcomes and actual quality improvement initiatives. In this study we aimed to evaluate the use of the Intervention Selection Toolbox in daily practice of a quality improvement team in a hospital setting. METHODS: A methodological triangulation design was used. The Intervention Selection Toolbox was used by a multidisciplinary quality improvement team for colorectal cancer care in a large teaching hospital. In-depth semi-structured interviews, focusing on the key elements of process evaluation, were conducted after implementation with representatives of the quality improvement team to evaluate the use of the Intervention Selection Toolbox. Quantitative data regarding improvement initiatives and degree of implementation was also collected. RESULTS: The use of the Intervention Selection Toolbox initially resulted in 80 potential quality improvement initiatives. Eventually, two high potential improvement initiatives were selected. Some components of the toolbox were successfully implemented in daily practice, although 'standard monitoring' and 'causal chain analysis' proved more difficult to implement. Qualitative analysis was performed with ten members of the multidisciplinary team before thematic saturation occurred. Interviewed members had a wide range in characteristics: age 28-61 years, clinical experience 6-38 years and educational attainment from vocational program to academic doctorate. The Interviews showed added value in the use of the toolbox, but identified time and organizational management as restricting factors. CONCLUSIONS: The Intervention Selection Toolbox is useful to systematically identify improvement initiatives with impact on health outcomes that matter to patients. However, before implementation organizational structure should be optimized to maximize success and efficiency on integration of the Intervention Selection Toolbox.

SPONGE-assisted versus Trendelenburg position surgery in laparoscopic sigmoid and rectal cancer surgery (SPONGE trial): randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: In minimally invasive surgery of the sigmoid colon and rectum a retractor sponge has been introduced as an alternative to the Trendelenburg position. This randomized clinical trial (RCT) compared postoperative duration of hospital stay and perioperative outcomes in patients with sigmoid or rectal cancer undergoing sponge-assisted versus Trendelenburg position surgery. METHODS: The SPONGE trial is a single-centre RCT nested within the Dutch nationwide prospective observational cohort of patients with colorectal cancer, and follows the Trials within Cohorts (TwiCs) design. Patients with sigmoid or rectal cancer undergoing elective laparoscopic or robotic surgery were randomized to either sponge-assisted or Trendelenburg surgery on a 1:1 basis using block randomization. Duration of postoperative hospital stay was the primary outcome and was compared using the Mann-Whitney U test. Secondary endpoints included the proportion of complications, readmissions, or mortality versus the χ2 test in intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses. This trial was not blinded for patients in the intervention arm or physicians. RESULTS: Between November 2015 and June 2021, 82 patients were randomized to sponge-assisted surgery and 81 to Trendelenburg surgery. After post-randomization exclusion, 150 patients remained for analyses (75 patients per arm). There was no statistically significant difference in median duration of hospital stay (5 days versus 4 days, respectively; P = 0.06), 30-day postoperative complications (30 per cent versus 31 per cent; P = 1.00), readmission rate (8 per cent versus 15 per cent; P = 0.30), or mortality (0 per cent versus 1 per cent, P = 1.00). The per-protocol analysis showed similar results. No adverse device events were seen. CONCLUSION: Sponge-assisted laparoscopic/robotic surgery does not reduce the duration of hospital stay, or perioperative morbidity or mortality. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02574013 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

Robot-Assisted Total Mesorectal Excision Versus Laparoscopic Total Mesorectal Excision: A Retrospective Propensity Score-Matched Cohort Analysis in Experienced Centers.

BACKGROUND: The superiority of robot-assisted over laparoscopic total mesorectal excision has not been proven. Most studies do not consider the learning curve while comparing the surgical technique. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to compare laparoscopic with robot-assisted total mesorectal excision performed by surgeons who completed the learning curve of the technique. DESIGN: This is a multicenter retrospective propensity score-matched analysis. SETTINGS: The study was performed in 2 large, dedicated robot-assisted hospitals and 5 large, dedicated laparoscopic hospitals. PATIENTS: Patients were included if they underwent a robot-assisted or laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer with curative intent at a dedicated center for the minimally invasive technique between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2017. INTERVENTIONS: We compared robot-assisted with laparoscopic total mesorectal excision. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome was conversion to laparotomy during surgery. Secondary outcomes were postoperative morbidity and positive circumferential resection margin. RESULTS: A total of 884 patients were included and, after matching, 315 patients per treatment group remained. Conversion was similar between laparoscopic and robot-assisted total mesorectal excision (4.4% vs 2.5% (p = 0.20)). Positive circumferential resection margin was equal (3.2% vs 4.4% (p = 0.41)). Overall morbidity was comparable as well, although a lower rate of wound infections was observed in the robot-assisted group (5.7% vs 1.9% (p = 0.01)). More primary anastomoses were constructed in the robot-assisted group (50.8% vs 68.3% (p < 0.001)). Finally, more open procedures were performed in dedicated laparoscopic centers, with an overrepresentation of cT4N+ tumors in this group. LIMITATIONS: This is a retrospective multicenter cohort; however, propensity score matching was applied to control for confounding by indication. CONCLUSIONS: Robot-assisted and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision are equally safe in terms of short-term outcomes. However, with the robot-assisted approach, more primary anastomoses were constructed, and a lower wound infection rate was observed. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B677.ESCISIÓN MESORRECTAL TOTAL ASISTIDA POR ROBOT VERSUS ESCISIÓN MESORRECTAL TOTAL LAPAROSCÓPICA: UNA PUNTUACIÓN DE PROPENSIÓN RETROSPECTIVA ANÁLISIS DE COHORTES EMPAREJADAS EN CENTROS EXPERIMENTADOS. ANTECEDENTES: No se ha demostrado la superioridad de la escisión mesorrectal total asistida por robot sobre la laparoscópica. La mayoría de los estudios no tienen en cuenta la curva de aprendizaje al comparar la técnica quirúrgica. OBJETIVO: Este estudio tiene como objetivo comparar la escisión mesorrectal total laparoscópica con la asistida por robot realizada por cirujanos que completaron la curva de aprendizaje de la técnica. DISEO: Este es un análisis multicéntrico retrospectivo emparejado por puntuación de propensión. AJUSTES: El estudio se realizó en dos grandes hospitales dedicados asistidos por robots y cinco grandes hospitales laparoscópicos dedicados. PACIENTES: Se incluyeron pacientes que se sometieron a escisión mesorrectal total asistida por robot o laparoscópica para cáncer de recto con intención curativa, en un centro dedicado a la técnica mínimamente invasiva entre el 1 de enero de 2015 y el 31 de diciembre de 2017. INTERVENCIONES: Comparamos la escisión mesorrectal total asistida por robot con la laparoscópica. PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO: El principal resultado fue la conversión a laparotomía durante la cirugía. Los resultados secundarios fueron la morbilidad posoperatoria y el margen circunferencial positivo. RESULTADOS: Se incluyó a un total de 884 pacientes y, después de emparejar, quedaron 315 pacientes por grupo de tratamiento. La conversión fue similar entre la escisión mesorrectal total laparoscópica y asistida por robot (4,4% frente a 2,5% [p = 0,20]). El margen de resección circunferencial positivo fue igual (3,2% vs 4,4% [p = 0,41]). La morbilidad general también fue comparable, aunque se observó una menor tasa de infecciones de heridas en el grupo asistido por robot (5,7% frente a 1,9% [p = 0,01]). Se construyeron más anastomosis primarias en el grupo asistido por robot (50,8% frente a 68,3% [p < 0,001]). Finalmente, se realizaron procedimientos más abiertos en centros laparoscópicos dedicados, con una sobrerrepresentación de tumores cT4N + en este grupo. LIMITACIONES: Ésta es una cohorte multicéntrica retrospectiva; sin embargo, se aplicó el emparejamiento por puntuación de propensión para controlar los factores de confusión por indicación. CONCLUSIONES: La escisión mesorrectal total asistida por robot y laparoscópica son igualmente seguras en términos de resultados a corto plazo. Sin embargo, con el abordaje asistido por robot, se construyeron más anastomosis primarias y se observó una menor tasa de infección de la herida. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B677. (Traducción-Dr. Gonzalo Hagerman).

Increased long-term mortality after open colorectal cancer surgery: A multicentre population-based study.

AIM: Unlike meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials, population-based studies in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients have shown a significant association between open surgery and increased 30- and 90-day mortality compared with laparoscopic surgery. Long-term mortality, however, is scarcely reported. This retrospective population-based study aimed to compare long-term mortality after open and laparoscopic surgery for CRC. METHOD: The Dutch Colorectal Audit and the Dutch Cancer Centre registry were used to identify patients from three large nonacademic teaching hospitals who underwent curative resection for CRC between 2009 and 2018. Patients with relative contraindications for laparoscopic surgery (cT4 or pT4 tumours, distant metastasis requiring additional resection and emergency surgery) were excluded. Multivariable regression was used to assess the effect of laparoscopic surgery on long-term mortality with adjustment for gender, age, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, TNM stage, chemoradiation therapy and other confounders. RESULTS: We included 4531 patients, of whom 1298 (29%) underwent open surgery. The median follow-up was 43 months (interquartile range 23-71 months). Open surgery was associated with an increased risk of long-term mortality (adjusted hazard ratio 1.26, 95% confidence interval 1.10-1.45, p = 0.001). Mixed-effects Cox regression with year of surgery as a random effect also showed an increased risk after open surgery (adjusted hazard ratio 1.33, 95% confidence interval 1.11-1.52, p = 0.004). CONCLUSION: Open surgery seems to be associated with increased long-term mortality in the elective setting for CRC patients. A minimally invasive approach might improve long-term outcomes.

Effect of Intra-Operative Hypothermia on Post-Operative Morbidity in Patients with Colorectal Cancer.

Background: Current guidelines recommend maintaining intra-operative normothermia to avoid surgical site infections (SSI) after colorectal cancer surgery. The aim of this study was to assess whether compliance with normothermia as part of temperature management measures is an effective strategy to reduce post-operative SSI and complications. Patients and Methods: This was a cohort study of patients undergoing surgery for primary colorectal cancer in 2011-2017 in a large teaching hospital in which temperature management using the Bair Hugger™ system (3M™ Center, St. Paul, MN) was standard care. Data from the prospective Dutch Surgical Audit (DCRA) database were complemented by highly granular intra-operative central body temperature data. A multivariable logistic regression model was used. Results: A total of 1,015 patients undergoing surgery for primary colorectal cancer were included. Temperature outcomes for the entire study cohort were as follows: mean temperature was 36.3°C (standard deviation [SD] ±0.5°C), median temperature nadir was 35.8°C (interquartile range [IQR] 35.6°C-36.1°C), median percentage of time at nadir was 2.0% (IQR 0.8%-10.7%), and median percentage of time less than 36.0°C was 1.0% (IQR 0.0%-33.3%). Thirty-day SSI rate was 10% (n = 101). Logistic regression models adjusting for gender, diabetes mellitus, body mass index (BMI), rectal cancer, duration of surgery, open surgery, emergency surgery, and period of surgery showed no association between any of the four temperature outcomes and SSI. Multivariable analysis also failed to show an association between intra-operative hypothermia and 30-day complications, mortality, or re-admission. Conclusions: In a hospital in which temperature management is standard care, intra-operative hypothermia and SSI rates in patients undergoing colorectal cancer surgery were low. Compliance with normothermia appears to be an effective strategy to reduce SSI.