Assessing quality of hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery: nationwide benchmarking.

BACKGROUND: Clinical auditing is a powerful tool to evaluate and improve healthcare. Deviations from the expected quality of care are identified by benchmarking the results of individual hospitals using national averages. This study aimed to evaluate the use of quality indicators for benchmarking hepato-pancreato-biliary (HPB) surgery and when outlier hospitals could be identified. METHODS: A population-based study used data from two nationwide Dutch HPB audits (DHBA and DPCA) from 2014 to 2021. Sample size calculations determined the threshold (in percentage points) to identify centres as statistical outliers, based on current volume requirements (annual minimum of 20 resections) on a two-year period (2020-2021), covering mortality rate, failure to rescue (FTR), major morbidity rate and textbook/ideal outcome (TO) for minor liver resection (LR), major LR, pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) and distal pancreatectomy (DP). RESULTS: In total, 10 963 and 7365 patients who underwent liver and pancreatic resection respectively were included. Benchmark and corresponding range of mortality rates were 0.6% (0 -3.2%) and 3.3% (0-16.7%) for minor and major LR, and 2.7% (0-7.0%) and 0.6% (0-4.2%) for PD and DP respectively. FTR rates were 5.4% (0-33.3%), 14.2% (0-100%), 7.5% (1.6%-28.5%) and 3.1% (0-14.9%). For major morbidity rate, corresponding rates were 9.8% (0-20.5%), 28.1% (0-47.1%), 36% (15.8%-58.3%) and 22.3% (5.2%-46.1%). For TO, corresponding rates were 73.6% (61.3%-94.4%), 54.1% (35.3-100), 46.8% (25.3%-59.4%) and 63.3% (30.7%-84.6%). Mortality rate thresholds indicating a significant outlier were 8.6% and 15.4% for minor and major LR and 14.2% and 8.6% for PD and DP. For FTR, these thresholds were 17.9%, 31.6%, 22.9% and 15.0%. For major morbidity rate, these thresholds were 26.1%, 49.7%, 57.9% and 52.9% respectively. For TO, lower thresholds were 52.5%, 32.5%, 25.8% and 41.4% respectively. Higher hospital volumes decrease thresholds to detect outliers. CONCLUSION: Current event rates and minimum volume requirements per hospital are too low to detect any meaningful between hospital differences in mortality rate and FTR. Major morbidity rate and TO are better candidates to use for benchmarking.

Trends and overall survival after combined liver resection and thermal ablation of colorectal liver metastases: a nationwide population-based propensity score-matched study.

BACKGROUND: In colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) patients, combination of liver resection and ablation permit a more parenchymal-sparing approach. This study assessed trends in use of combined resection and ablation, outcomes, and overall survival (OS). METHODS: This population-based study included all CRLM patients who underwent liver resection between 2014 and 2022. To assess OS, data was linked to two databases containing date of death for patients treated between 2014 and 2018. Hospital variation in the use of combined minor liver resection and ablation versus major liver resection alone in patients with 2-3 CRLM and ≤3 cm was assessed. Propensity score matching (PSM) was applied to evaluate outcomes. RESULTS: This study included 3593 patients, of whom 1336 (37.2%) underwent combined resection and ablation. Combined resection increased from 31.7% in 2014 to 47.9% in 2022. Significant hospital variation (range 5.9-53.8%) was observed in the use of combined minor liver resection and ablation. PSM resulted in 1005 patients in each group. Major morbidity was not different (11.6% vs. 5%, P = 1.00). Liver failure occurred less often after combined resection and ablation (1.9% vs. 0.6%, P = 0.017). Five-year OS rates were not different (39.3% vs. 33.9%, P = 0.145). CONCLUSION: Combined resection and ablation should be available and considered as an alternative to resection alone in any patient with multiple metastases.

Hospital variation and outcomes after repeat hepatic resection for colorectal liver metastases: a nationwide cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 70% of patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) experiences intrahepatic recurrence after initial liver resection. This study assessed outcomes and hospital variation in repeat liver resections (R-LR). METHODS: This population-based study included all patients who underwent liver resection for CRLM between 2014 and 2022 in the Netherlands. Overall survival (OS) was collected for patients operated on between 2014 and 2018 by linkage to the insurance database. RESULTS: Data of 7479 liver resections (1391 (18.6%) repeat and 6088 (81.4%) primary) were analysed. Major morbidity and mortality were not different. Factors associated with major morbidity included ASA 3+, major liver resection, extrahepatic disease, and open surgery. Five-year OS after repeat versus primary liver resection was 42.3% versus 44.8%, P = 0.37. Factors associated with worse OS included largest CRLM >5 cm (aHR 1.58, 95% CI: 1.07-2.34, P = 0.023), >3 CRLM (aHR 1.33, 95% CI: 1.00-1.75, P = 0.046), extrahepatic disease (aHR 1.60, 95% CI: 1.25-2.04, P = 0.001), positive tumour margins (aHR 1.42, 95% CI: 1.09-1.85, P = 0.009). Significant hospital variation in performance of R-LR was observed, median 18.9% (8.2% to 33.3%). CONCLUSION: Significant hospital variation was observed in performance of R-LR in the Netherlands reflecting different treatment decisions upon recurrence. On a population-based level R-LR leads to satisfactory survival.

Transatlantic registries for minimally invasive liver surgery: towards harmonization.

BACKGROUND: Several registries focus on patients undergoing minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS). This study compared transatlantic registries focusing on the variables collected and differences in baseline characteristics, indications, and treatment in patients undergoing MILS. Furthermore, key variables were identified. METHODS: The five registries for liver surgery from North America (ACS-NSQIP), Italy, Norway, the Netherlands, and Europe were compared. A set of key variables were established by consensus expert opinion and compared between the registries. Anonymized data of all MILS procedures were collected (January 2014-December 2019). To summarize differences for all patient characteristics, treatment, and outcome, the relative and absolute largest differences (RLD, ALD) between the smallest and largest outcome per variable among the registries are presented. RESULTS: In total, 13,571 patients after MILS were included. Both 30- and 90-day mortality after MILS were below 1.1% in all registries. The largest differences in baseline characteristics were seen in ASA grade 3-4 (RLD 3.0, ALD 46.1%) and the presence of liver cirrhosis (RLD 6.4, ALD 21.2%). The largest difference in treatment was the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (RLD 4.3, ALD 20.6%). The number of variables collected per registry varied from 28 to 303. From the 46 key variables, 34 were missing in at least one of the registries. CONCLUSION: Despite considerable variation in baseline characteristics, indications, and treatment of patients undergoing MILS in the five transatlantic registries, overall mortality after MILS was consistently below 1.1%. The registries should be harmonized to facilitate future collaborative research on MILS for which the identified 46 key variables will be instrumental.

Practice variation and outcomes of minimally invasive minor liver resections in patients with colorectal liver metastases: a population-based study.

INTRODUCTION: In 2017, the Southampton guideline stated that minimally invasive liver resections (MILR) should considered standard practice for minor liver resections. This study aimed to assess recent implementation rates of minor MILR, factors associated with performing MILR, hospital variation, and outcomes in patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). METHODS: This population-based study included all patients who underwent minor liver resection for CRLM in the Netherlands between 2014 and 2021. Factors associated with MILR and nationwide hospital variation were assessed using multilevel multivariable logistic regression. Propensity-score matching (PSM) was applied to compare outcomes between minor MILR and minor open liver resections. Overall survival (OS) was assessed with Kaplan-Meier analysis on patients operated until 2018. RESULTS: Of 4,488 patients included, 1,695 (37.8%) underwent MILR. PSM resulted in 1,338 patients in each group. Implementation of MILR increased to 51.2% in 2021. Factors associated with not performing MILR included treatment with preoperative chemotherapy (aOR 0.61 CI:0.50-0.75, p < 0.001), treatment in a tertiary referral hospital (aOR 0.57 CI:0.50-0.67, p < 0.001), and larger diameter and number of CRLM. Significant hospital variation was observed in use of MILR (7.5% to 93.0%). After case-mix correction, six hospitals performed fewer, and six hospitals performed more MILRs than expected. In the PSM cohort, MILR was associated with a decrease in blood loss (aOR 0.99 CI:0.99-0.99, p < 0.01), cardiac complications (aOR 0.29, CI:0.10-0.70, p = 0.009), IC admissions (aOR 0.66, CI:0.50-0.89, p = 0.005), and shorter hospital stay (aOR CI:0.94-0.99, p < 0.01). Five-year OS rates for MILR and OLR were 53.7% versus 48.6%, p = 0.21. CONCLUSION: Although uptake of MILR is increasing in the Netherlands, significant hospital variation remains. MILR benefits short-term outcomes, while overall survival is comparable to open liver surgery.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on surgical care in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic caused disruption of regular healthcare leading to reduced hospital attendances, repurposing of surgical facilities, and cancellation of cancer screening programmes. This study aimed to determine the impact of COVID-19 on surgical care in the Netherlands. METHODS: A nationwide study was conducted in collaboration with the Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing. Eight surgical audits were expanded with items regarding alterations in scheduling and treatment plans. Data on procedures performed in 2020 were compared with those from a historical cohort (2018-2019). Endpoints included total numbers of procedures performed and altered treatment plans. Secondary endpoints included complication, readmission, and mortality rates. RESULTS: Some 12 154 procedures were performed in participating hospitals in 2020, representing a decrease of 13.6 per cent compared with 2018-2019. The largest reduction (29.2 per cent) was for non-cancer procedures during the first COVID-19 wave. Surgical treatment was postponed for 9.6 per cent of patients. Alterations in surgical treatment plans were observed in 1.7 per cent. Time from diagnosis to surgery decreased (to 28 days in 2020, from 34 days in 2019 and 36 days in 2018; P < 0.001). For cancer-related procedures, duration of hospital stay decreased (5 versus 6 days; P < 0.001). Audit-specific complications, readmission, and mortality rates were unchanged, but ICU admissions decreased (16.5 versus 16.8 per cent; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The reduction in the number of surgical operations was greatest for those without cancer. Where surgery was undertaken, it appeared to be delivered safely, with similar complication and mortality rates, fewer admissions to ICU, and a shorter hospital stay.

COVID-19 has had a significant impact on healthcare worldwide. Hospital visits were reduced, operating facilities were used for COVID-19 care, and cancer screening programmes were cancelled. This study describes the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Dutch surgical healthcare in 2020. Patterns of care in terms of changed or delayed treatment are described for patients who had surgery in 2020, compared with those who had surgery in 2018­2019. The study found that mainly non-cancer surgical treatments were cancelled during months with high COVID-19 rates. Outcomes for patients undergoing surgery were similar but with fewer ICU admissions and shorter hospital stay. These data provide no insight into the burden endured by patients who had postponed or cancelled operations.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on incidence and severity of acute appendicitis: a comparison between 2019 and 2020.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, a decrease in the number of patients presenting with acute appendicitis was observed. It is unclear whether this caused a shift towards more complicated cases of acute appendicitis. We compared a cohort of patients diagnosed with acute appendicitis during the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic with a 2019 control cohort. METHODS: We retrospectively included consecutive adult patients in 21 hospitals presenting with acute appendicitis in a COVID-19 pandemic cohort (March 15 - April 30, 2020) and a control cohort (March 15 - April 30, 2019). Primary outcome was the proportion of complicated appendicitis. Secondary outcomes included prehospital delay, appendicitis severity, and postoperative complication rates. RESULTS: The COVID-19 pandemic cohort comprised 607 patients vs. 642 patients in the control cohort. During the COVID-19 pandemic, a higher proportion of complicated appendicitis was seen (46.9% vs. 38.5%; p = 0.003). More patients had symptoms exceeding 24 h (61.1% vs. 56.2%, respectively, p = 0.048). After correction for prehospital delay, presentation during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic was still associated with a higher rate of complicated appendicitis. Patients presenting > 24 h after onset of symptoms during the COVID-19 pandemic were older (median 45 vs. 37 years; p = 0.001) and had more postoperative complications (15.3% vs. 6.7%; p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Although the incidence of acute appendicitis was slightly lower during the first wave of the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic, more patients presented with a delay and with complicated appendicitis than in a corresponding period in 2019. Spontaneous resolution of mild appendicitis may have contributed to the increased proportion of patients with complicated appendicitis. Late presenting patients were older and experienced more postoperative complications compared to the control cohort.

The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Time to Treatment in Surgical Oncology: A National Registry Study in The Netherlands.

To avoid delay in oncological treatment, a 6-weeks norm for time to treatment has been agreed on in The Netherlands. However, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on health systems resulted in reduced capacity for regular surgical care. In this study, we investigated the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on time to treatment in surgical oncology in The Netherlands. METHODS: A population-based analysis of data derived from five surgical audits, including patients who underwent surgery for lung cancer, colorectal cancer, upper gastro-intestinal, and hepato-pancreato-biliary (HPB) malignancies, was performed. The COVID-19 cohort of 2020 was compared to the historic cohorts of 2018 and 2019. Primary endpoints were time to treatment initiation and the proportion of patients whose treatment started within 6 weeks. The secondary objective was to evaluate the differences in characteristics and tumour stage distribution between patients treated before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: A total of 14,567 surgical cancer patients were included in this study, of these 3292 treatments were started during the COVID-19 pandemic. The median time to treatment decreased during the pandemic (26 vs. 27 days, p < 0.001) and the proportion of patients whose treatment started within 6 weeks increased (76% vs. 73%, p < 0.001). In a multivariate logistic regression analysis, adjusting for patient characteristics, no significant difference in post-operative outcomes between patients who started treatment before or after 6 weeks was found. Overall, the number of procedures performed per week decreased by 8.1% during the pandemic. This reduction was most profound for patients with stage I lung carcinoma and colorectal carcinoma. There were fewer patients with pulmonary comorbidities in the pandemic cohort (11% vs. 13%, p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Despite pressure on the capacity of the healthcare system during the COVID-19 pandemic, a larger proportion of surgical oncological patients started treatment within six weeks, possibly due to prioritisation of cancer care and reductions in elective procedures. However, during the pandemic, a decrease in the number of surgical oncological procedures performed in The Netherlands was observed, especially for patients with stage I disease.

Association of modified textbook outcome and overall survival after surgery for colorectal liver metastases: A nationwide analysis.

BACKGROUND: Textbook outcome (TO) represents a multidimensional quality measurement, encompassing the desirable short-term outcomes following surgery. This study aimed to investigate whether achieving TO after resection of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) surgery is related to better overall survival (OS) in a national cohort. METHOD: Data was retrieved from the Dutch Hepato Biliary Audit. A modified definition of TO (mTO) was used because readmissions were only recorded from 2019. mTO was achieved when no severe postoperative complications, mortality, prolonged length of hospital stay, occurred and when adequate surgical resection margins were obtained. To compare outcomes of patients with and without mTO and reduce baseline differences between both groups propensity score matching (PSM) was used for patients operated on between 2014 and 2018. RESULTS: Out of 6525 eligible patients, 81 % achieved mTO. For the cohort between 2014 and 2018, those achieving mTO had a 5-year OS of 46.7 % (CI 44.8-48.6) while non-mTO patients had a 5-year OS of 33.7 % (CI 29.8-38.2), p < 0.001. Not achieving mTO was associated with a worse OS (aHR 1.34 (95 % CI 1.17-1.53), p < 0.001. Median follow-up was 76 months., PSM assigned 519 patients to each group. In the PSM cohort patients achieving mTO, 5-year OS was 43.6 % (95 % CI 39.2-48.5) compared to 36.4 % (95 % CI 31.9-41.2) in patients who did not achieve mTO, p = 0.006. CONCLUSION: Achieving mTO is associated with improved long-term survival. This emphasizes the importance of optimising perioperative care and reducing postoperative complications in surgical treatment of CRLM.

Outcomes of liver surgery: A decade of mandatory nationwide auditing in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: In 2013, the nationwide Dutch Hepato Biliary Audit (DHBA) was initiated. The aim of this study was to evaluate changes in indications for and outcomes of liver surgery in the last decade. METHODS: This nationwide study included all patients who underwent liver surgery for four indications, including colorectal liver metastases (CRLM), hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), and intrahepatic- and perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA - pCCA) between 2014 and 2022. Trends in postoperative outcomes were evaluated separately for each indication using multilevel multivariable logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: This study included 8057 procedures for CRLM, 838 for HCC, 290 for iCCA, and 300 for pCCA. Over time, these patients had higher risk profiles (more ASA-III patients and more comorbidities). Adjusted mortality decreased over time for CRLM, HCC and iCCA, respectively aOR 0.83, 95%CI 0.75-0.92, P < 0.001; aOR 0.86, 95%CI 0.75-0.99, P = 0.045; aOR 0.40, 95%CI 0.20-0.73, P < 0.001. Failure to rescue (FTR) also decreased for these groups, respectively aOR 0.84, 95%CI 0.76-0.93, P = 0.001; aOR 0.81, 95%CI 0.68-0.97, P = 0.024; aOR 0.29, 95%CI 0.08-0.84, P = 0.021). For iCCA severe complications (aOR 0.65 95%CI 0.43-0.99, P = 0.043) also decreased. No significant outcome differences were observed in pCCA. The number of centres performing liver resections decreased from 26 to 22 between 2014 and 2022, while median annual volumes did not change (40-49, P = 0.66). CONCLUSION: Over time, postoperative mortality and FTR decreased after liver surgery, despite treating higher-risk patients. The DHBA continues its focus on providing feedback and benchmark results to further enhance outcomes.

Risk factors and outcomes of conversions in robotic and laparoscopic liver resections: A nationwide analysis.

BACKGROUND: Unfavorable intraoperative findings or incidents during minimally invasive liver surgery may necessitate conversion to open surgery. This study aimed to identify predictors for conversion in minimally invasive liver surgery and gain insight into outcomes following conversions. METHODS: This nationwide, retrospective cohort study compared converted and non-converted minimally invasive liver surgery procedures using data from 20 centers in the Dutch Hepatobiliary Audit (2014-2022). Propensity score matching was applied. Subgroup analyses of converted robotic liver resection versus laparoscopic liver resection and emergency versus non-emergency conversions were performed. Predictors for conversions were identified using backward stepwise multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Of 3,530 patients undergoing minimally invasive liver surgery (792 robotic liver resection, 2,738 laparoscopic liver resection), 408 (11.6%) were converted (4.9% robotic liver resection, 13.5% laparoscopic liver resection). Conversion was associated with increased blood loss (580 mL [interquartile range 250-1,200] vs 200 mL [interquartile range 50-500], P < .001), major blood loss (≥500 mL, 58.8% vs 26.7%, P < .001), intensive care admission (19.0% vs 8.4%, P = .005), overall morbidity (38.9% vs 21.0%, P < .001), severe morbidity (17.9% vs 9.6%, P = .002), and a longer hospital stay (6 days [interquartile range 5-8] vs 4 days [interquartile range 2-5], P < .001) but not mortality (2.2% vs 1.2%, P = .387). Emergency conversions had increased intraoperative blood loss (1,500 mL [interquartile range 700-2,800] vs 525 mL [interquartile range 208-1,000], P < .001), major blood loss (87.5% vs 59.3%, P = .005), and intensive care admission (27.9% vs 10.6%, P = .029), compared with non-emergency conversions. Robotic liver resection was linked to lower conversion risk, whereas American Society of Anesthesiologists grade ≥3, larger lesion size, concurrent ablation, technically major, and anatomically major resections were risk factors. CONCLUSION: Both emergency and non-emergency conversions negatively impact perioperative outcomes in minimally invasive liver surgery. Robotic liver resection reduces conversion risk compared to laparoscopic liver resection.

Survival of patients with colorectal liver metastases treated with and without preoperative chemotherapy: Nationwide propensity score-matched study.

INTRODUCTION: Routine treatment with preoperative systemic chemotherapy (CTx) in patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) remains controversial due to lack of consistent evidence demonstrating associated survival benefits. This study aimed to determine the effect of preoperative CTx on overall survival (OS) compared to surgery alone and to assess hospital and oncological network variation in 5-year OS. METHODS: This was a population-based study of all patients who underwent liver resection for CRLM between 2014 and 2017 in the Netherlands. After 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM), OS was compared between patients treated with and without preoperative CTx. Hospital and oncological network variation in 5-year OS corrected for case-mix factors was calculated using an observed/expected ratio. RESULTS: Of 2820 patients included, 852 (30.2%) and 1968 (69.8%) patients were treated with preoperative CTx and surgery alone, respectively. After PSM, 537 patients remained in each group, median number of CRLM; 3 [IQR 2-4], median size of CRLM; 28 mm [IQR 18-44], synchronous CLRM (71.1%). Median follow-up was 80.8 months. Five-year OS rates after PSM for patients treated with and without preoperative chemotherapy were 40.2% versus 38.3% (log-rank P = 0.734). After stratification for low, medium, and high tumour burden based on the tumour burden score (TBS) OS was similar for preoperative chemotherapy vs. surgery alone (log-rank P = 0.486, P = 0.914, and P = 0.744, respectively). After correction for non-modifiable patient and tumour characteristics, no relevant hospital or oncological network variation in five-year OS was observed. CONCLUSION: In patients eligible for surgical resection, preoperative chemotherapy does not provide an overall survival benefit compared to surgery alone.

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.