Objective assessment of minimally invasive total mesorectal excision performance: a systematic review

Supporting laparoscopic general surgery training with digital technology: The United Kingdom and Ireland paradigm

Surgical training in the UK and Ireland has faced challenges following the implementation of the European Working Time Directive and postgraduate training reform. The health services are undergoing a digital transformation; digital technology is remodelling the delivery of surgical care and surgical training. This review aims to critically evaluate key issues in laparoscopic general surgical training and the digital technology such as virtual and augmented reality, telementoring and automated workflow analysis and surgical skills assessment. We include pre-clinical, proof of concept research and commercial systems that are being developed to provide solutions. Digital surgical technology is evolving through interdisciplinary collaboration to provide widespread access to high-quality laparoscopic general surgery training and assessment. In the future this could lead to integrated, context-aware systems that support surgical teams in providing safer surgical care.

Association of Surgical Skill Assessment With Clinical Outcomes in Cancer Surgery

Importance

Complex surgical interventions are inherently prone to variation yet they are not objectively measured. The reasons for outcome differences following cancer surgery are unclear.

Objective

To quantify surgical skill within advanced laparoscopic procedures and its association with histopathological and clinical outcomes.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This analysis of data and video from the Australasian Laparoscopic Cancer of Rectum (ALaCaRT) and 2-dimensional/3-dimensional (2D3D) multicenter randomized laparoscopic total mesorectal excision trials, which were conducted at 28 centers in Australia, the United Kingdom, and New Zealand, was performed from 2018 to 2019 and included 176 patients with clinical T1 to T3 rectal adenocarcinoma 15 cm or less from the anal verge. Case videos underwent blinded objective analysis using a bespoke performance assessment tool developed with a 62-international expert Delphi exercise and workshop, interview, and pilot phases.

Interventions

Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision undertaken with curative intent by 34 credentialed surgeons.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Histopathological (plane of mesorectal dissection, ALaCaRT composite end point success [mesorectal fascial plane, circumferential margin, ≥1 mm; distal margin, ≥1 mm]) and 30-day morbidity. End points were analyzed using surgeon quartiles defined by tool scores.

Results

The laparoscopic total mesorectal excision performance tool was produced and shown to be reliable and valid for the specialist level (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.889; 95% CI, 0.832-0.926; P < .001). A substantial variation in tool scores was recorded (range, 25-48). Scores were associated with the number of intraoperative errors, plane of mesorectal dissection, and short-term patient morbidity, including the number and severity of complications. Upper quartile-scoring surgeons obtained excellent results compared with the lower quartile (mesorectal fascial plane: 93% vs 59%; number needed to treat [NNT], 2.9, P = .002; ALaCaRT end point success, 83% vs 58%; NNT, 4; P = .03; 30-day morbidity, 23% vs 50%; NNT, 3.7; P = .03).

Conclusions and Relevance

Intraoperative surgical skill can be objectively and reliably measured in complex cancer interventions. Substantial variation in technical performance among credentialed surgeons is seen and significantly associated with clinical and pathological outcomes.

Factors Predicting Operative Difficulty of Laparoscopic Total Mesorectal Excision

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision is a challenging procedure requiring high-quality surgery for optimal outcomes. Patient, tumor, and pelvic factors are believed to determine difficulty, but previous studies were limited to postoperative data.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to report factors predicting laparoscopic total mesorectal excision performance by using objective intraoperative assessment.

DESIGN

Data from a multicenter laparoscopic total mesorectal excision randomized trial (ISRCTN59485808) were reviewed.

SETTING

This study was conducted at 4 centers in the United Kingdom.

PATIENTS AND INTERVENTION

Seventy-one patients underwent elective laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal adenocarcinoma with curative intent: 53% were men, mean age was 69 years, body mass index was 27.7, tumor height was 8.5 cm, 24% underwent neoadjuvant therapy, and 25% had previous surgery.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Surgical performance was assessed through the identification of intraoperative adverse events by using observational clinical human reliability analysis. Univariate analysis and multivariate binomial regression were performed to establish factors predicting the number of intraoperative errors, surgeon-reported case difficulty, and short-term clinical and histopathological outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 1331 intraoperative errors were identified from 365 hours of surgery (median, 18 per case; interquartile range, 16-22; and range, 9-49). No patient, tumor, or bony pelvimetry measurement correlated with total or pelvic error count, surgeon-reported case difficulty, cognitive load, operative data, specimen quality, number or severity of 30-day morbidity events and length of stay (all r not exceeding ±0.26, p > 0.05). Mesorectal area was associated with major intraoperative adverse events (OR, 1.09; 95%CI, 1.01-1.16; p = 0.015) and postoperative morbidity (OR, 1.1; 95% CI, 1.01-1.2; p = 0.033). Obese men were subjectively reported as harder cases (24 vs 36 mm, p = 0.042), but no detrimental effects on performance or outcomes were seen.

LIMITATIONS

Our sample size is modest, risking type II errors and overfitting of the statistical models.

CONCLUSION

Patient, tumor, and bony pelvic anatomical characteristics are not seen to influence laparoscopic total mesorectal excision operative difficulty. Mesorectal area is identified as a risk factor for intraoperative and postoperative morbidity. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B35. FACTORES QUE PREDICEN LA DIFICULTAD OPERATIVA DE LA ESCISIÓN MESORRECTAL TOTAL LAPAROSCÓPICA: La escisión mesorrectal total laparoscópica es un procedimiento desafiante. Para obtener resultados óptimos, se requiere cirugía de alta calidad. Se cree que, factores como el paciente, el tumor y la pelvis, determinan la dificultad, pero estudios previos solamente se han limitado a datos postoperatorios.Informar de los factores que predicen el resultado de la escisión mesorrectal total laparoscópica, mediante una evaluación intraoperatoria objetiva.Datos de un ensayo multicéntrico y randomizado de escisión mesorrectal total laparoscópica (ISRCTN59485808).Cuatro centros del Reino Unido.Un total de 71 pacientes fueron sometidos a escisión mesorrectal total laparoscópica electiva, para adenocarcinoma rectal con intención curativa. 53% hombres, edad media, índice de masa corporal y altura del tumor 69, 27.7 y 8.5 cm respectivamente, 24% terapia neoadyuvante y 25% cirugía previa.Rendimiento quirúrgico evaluado mediante la identificación de eventos intraoperatorios adversos, mediante el análisis clínico observacional de confiabilidad humana. Se realizaron análisis univariado y la regresión binomial multivariada para establecer factores que predicen el número de errores intraoperatorios, reportes del cirujano sobre la dificultad del caso y los resultados clínicos e histopatológicos a corto plazo.Se identificaron un total de 1,331 errores intraoperatorios en 365 horas de cirugía (media de 18 por caso, IQR 16-22, rango 9-49). Ningún paciente, tumor o medición de pelvimetría pélvica, se correlacionó con la cuenta de errores pélvicos o totales, reporte del cirujano sobre dificultad del caso, carga cognitiva, datos operativos, calidad de la muestra, número o gravedad de eventos de morbilidad de 30 días y duración de la estadía (todos r <± 0.26, p > 0.05). El área mesorrectal se asoció con eventos adversos intraoperatorios importantes (OR, 1.09; IC 95%, 1.01-1.16; p = 0.015) y morbilidad postoperatoria (OR, 1.1; IC 95%, 1.01-1.2; p = 0.033). Como información subjetiva, hombres obesos fueron casos más difíciles (24 mm frente a 36 mm, p = 0.042) pero no se observaron efectos perjudiciales sobre el rendimiento o los resultados.Nuestro tamaño de muestra es un modesto riesgo de errores de tipo II y el sobreajuste de los modelos estadísticos.No se observa que las características anatómicas del paciente, tumor y pelvis ósea influyan en la dificultad operatoria de la escisión mesorrectal laparoscópica total. El área mesorrectal se identifica como un factor de riesgo para la morbilidad intraoperatoria y postoperatoria. Vea el resumen del video en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B35.

EAES classification of intraoperative adverse events in laparoscopic surgery

BACKGROUND

Surgical outcomes are traditionally evaluated by post-operative data such as histopathology and morbidity. Although these outcomes are reported using accepted systems, their ability to influence operative performance is limited by their retrospective application. Interest in direct measurement of intraoperative events is growing but no available systems applicable to routine practice exist. We aimed to develop a structured, practical method to report intraoperative adverse events enacted during minimal access surgical procedures.

METHODS

A structured mixed methodology approach was adopted. Current intraoperative adverse event reporting practices and desirable system characteristics were sought through a survey of the EAES executive. The observational clinical human reliability analysis method was applied to a series of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) case videos to identify intraoperative adverse events. In keeping with survey results, observed events were further categorised into non-consequential and consequential, which were further subdivided into four levels based upon the principle of therapy required to correct the event. A second survey phase explored usability, acceptability, face and content validity of the novel classification.

RESULTS

217 h of TME surgery were analysed to develop and continually refine the five-point hierarchical structure. 34 EAES expert surgeons (69%) responded. The lack of an accepted system was the main barrier to routine reporting. Simplicity, reproducibility and clinical utility were identified as essential requirements. The observed distribution of intraoperative adverse events was 60.1% grade I (non-consequential), 37.1% grade II (minor corrective action), 2.4% grade III (major correction or change in post-operative care) and 0.1% grade IV (life threatening). 84% agreed with the proposed classification (Likert scale 4.04) and 92% felt it was applicable to their practice and incorporated all desirable characteristics.

CONCLUSION

A clinically applicable intraoperative adverse event classification, which is acceptable to expert surgeons, is reported and complements the objective assessment of minimal access surgical performance.