Influence of Specialty Training and Trainee Involvement on Perioperative Outcomes of Esophagectomy

Long-Term Impact of Severe Postoperative Complications after Esophagectomy for Cancer: Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Severe postoperative complications (SPCs) may occur after curative esophagectomy for cancer and are associated with prolonged hospital stay, augmented costs, and increased in-hospital mortality. However, the effect of SPCs on survival after esophagectomy is uncertain.

AIM

To assess the impact of severe postoperative complications (SPCs) on long-term survival following curative esophagectomy for cancer, we conducted a systematic search of PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science databases up to December 2023. The included studies examined the relationship between SPCs and survival outcomes, defining SPCs as Clavien-Dindo grade > 3. The primary outcome measure was long-term overall survival (OS). We used restricted mean survival time difference (RMSTD) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to calculate pooled effect sizes. Additionally, we applied the GRADE methodology to evaluate the certainty of the evidence.

RESULTS

Ten studies (2181 patients) were included. SPCs were reported in 651 (29.8%) patients. The RMSTD overall survival analysis shows that at 60-month follow-up, patients experiencing SPCs lived for 8.6 months (95% Cis -12.5, -4.7; p < 0.001) less, on average, compared with no-SPC patients. No differences were found for 60-month follow-up disease-free survival (-4.6 months, 95% CIs -11.9, 1.9; p = 0.17) and cancer-specific survival (-6.8 months, 95% CIs -11.9, 1.7; p = 0.21). The GRADE certainty of this evidence ranged from low to very low.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests a statistically significant detrimental effect of SPCs on OS in patients undergoing curative esophagectomy for cancer. Also, a clinical trend toward reduced CSS and DFS was perceived.

Quality Performance Indicators for the Surgical Management of Oesophageal Cancer: A Systematic Literature Review

BACKGROUND

The objective of this systematic review was to identify pre-existing quality performance indicators (QPIs) for the surgical management of oesophageal cancer (OC). These QPIs can be used to objectively measure and compare the performance of individual units and capture key elements of patient care to improve patient outcomes.

METHODS

A systematic literature search of PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus and Embase was conducted. Articles reporting on the quality of healthcare in relation to oesophageal neoplasm or cancer and the surgical treatment of OC available until the 1st of March 2022 were included.

RESULTS

The final list of articles included retrospective reviews (n = 13), prospective reviews (n = 8), expert guidelines (n = 1) and consensus (n = 1). The final list of QPIs was categorized as process, outcome or structural measures. Process measures included multidisciplinary involvement, availability of multimodality diagnostic and treatment pathways and surgical metrics. Outcome measures included reoperation and readmission rates, the achievement of RO resection and length of hospital stay. Structural measures include multidisciplinary meetings.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review summarizes QPIs for the surgical treatment of OC. The data will serve as an introduction to establishing a quality initiative project for OC resections.

Esophagectomies for Malignancy Among General and Thoracic Surgeons: A Propensity Score Matched National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Analysis Stratified by Surgical Approach

Previous studies of esophagectomy outcomes by surgical specialty do not address malignancy or surgical approach. We sought to evaluate these cases using a national database. The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP)-targeted esophagectomy data set was queried for esophagectomies for malignancy and grouped by surgeon specialty: thoracic surgery (TS) or general surgery (GS). 1:1 propensity score matching was performed. Associations of surgical specialty with outcomes of interest (30-day mortality, anastomotic leak, Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ 3, and positive margin rate) were assessed overall and in surgical approach subsets. 1463 patients met inclusion criteria (512 GS and 951 TS). Propensity score matching yielded matched groups of 512, with similar demographics, preoperative stage, and neoadjuvant therapy rates. All outcomes of interest were similar between TS and GS groups, both overall and when stratified by surgical approach. Esophagectomy for malignancy has a similar perioperative safety profile and positive margin rate among general and thoracic surgeons, regardless of surgical approach.

Determinants of Long-term Survival Decades After Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer

BACKGROUND

Long-term survival in esophagectomy patients with esophageal cancer is low due to tumor-related characteristics, with few reports of modifiable variables influencing outcome. We identified determinants of overall survival, time to recurrence, and disease-free survival in this patient cohort.

METHODS

Adult patients who underwent esophagectomy for primary esophageal cancer from January 5, 2000, through December 30, 2010, at our institution were identified. Univariate Cox models and multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to identify associations between modifiable and unmodifiable patient and clinical variables and outcome of survival for the total cohort and a subgroup with locally advanced disease.

RESULTS

We identified 870 patients with esophageal cancer who underwent esophagectomy. The median follow-up time was 15 years, and the 15-year overall survival rate was 25.2%, survival free of recurrence was 57.96%, and disease-free survival was 24.21%. Decreased overall survival was associated with the following unmodifiable variables: older age, male sex, active smoking status, history of coronary artery disease, advanced clinical stage, and tumor location. Decreased overall survival was associated with the following modifiable variables: use of neoadjuvant therapy, advanced pathologic stage, resection margin positivity, surgical reintervention, and blood transfusion requirement. The overall survival probability 6 years after esophagectomy was 0.920 (95% CI, 0.895-0.947), and time-to-recurrence probability was 0.988 (95% CI, 0.976-1.000), with a total of 17 recurrences and 201 deaths.

CONCLUSIONS

Once patients survive 5 years, recurrence is rare. Long-term survival can be achieved in high-volume centers adhering to National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines using multidisciplinary care teams that is double what has been previously reported in the literature from national databases.

Impact of surgeon specialty on clinical outcomes following esophagectomy for cancer

BACKGROUND

The impact of surgeon and hospital operative volume on esophagectomy outcomes is well-described; however, studies examining the influence of surgeon specialty remain limited. Therefore, we evaluated the impact of surgeon specialty on short-term outcomes following esophagectomy for cancer.

METHODS

The 2016-2019 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Project (ACS NSQIP) was queried to identify all patients undergoing esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. Surgeon specialty was categorized as general (GS) or thoracic (TS). Entropy balancing was used to generate sample weights that adjust for baseline differences between GS and TS patients. Weights were subsequently applied to multivariable linear and logistic regressions, which were used to evaluate the independent association of surgeon specialty with 30-day mortality, complications, and postoperative length of stay.

RESULTS

Of 2657 esophagectomies included for analysis, 54.1% were performed by TS. Both groups had similar distributions of age, sex, and body mass index. TS patients more frequently underwent transthoracic esophagectomy, while GS patients more commonly received minimally invasive surgery. After adjustment, surgeon specialty was not associated with altered odds of 30-day mortality (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 1.10 p = 0.73) or anastomotic leak (AOR 0.87, p = 0.33). However, TS patients exhibited a 40-min reduction in operative duration and faced greater odds of perioperative transfusion, relative to GS.

CONCLUSION

Among ACS NSQIP participating centers, surgeon specialty influenced operative duration and blood product utilization, but not mortality and anastomotic leak. Our results support the relative safety of esophagectomy performed by select GS and TS.

Effect of Thoracic Surgery Regionalization on 1- and 3-Year Survival after Cancer Esophagectomy

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to investigate whether our previously reported improvements in short-term cancer esophagectomy outcomes after large-scale regionalization in the United States translated to longer-term survival benefit.

BACKGROUND

Regionalization is associated with better early postoperative outcomes following cancer esophagectomy; however, data regarding its effect on long-term survival are mixed.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 461 patients undergoing cancer esophagectomy before (2009-2013, N = 272) and after (2014-2016, N = 189) regionalization. Kaplan-Meier curves and chi-square tests were used to describe 1- and 3-year survival in each era. Hierarchical logistic regression models examined the adjusted effect of regionalization on mortality.

RESULTS

Compared to pre-regionalization patients, post-regionalization patients had significantly higher 1-year survival (83.1% vs 73.9%, P = 0.02) but not 3-year survival (52.9% vs 58.2%, P = 0.26).Subgroup analysis by cancer stage revealed that 1-year survival benefit was only significant among mid-stage (IIB-IIIB) patients, whereas differences in 3-year survival only approached significance among early-stage (IA-IIA) patients.In multivariable analysis, only regionalization was a predictor of lower mortality at 1 year [odds ratio (OR) 0.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.29-1.00], and only thoracic specialty at 3years (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.38-0.99). Older age, more advanced stage, and complications were associated with higher 1- and 3-year mortality. Comorbidity, minimally invasive approach, surgeon volume, facility volume, and neoadjuvant treatment were not significant in this model.

CONCLUSIONS

Regionalization was associated with improved 1-year survival after cancer esophagectomy, independent of factors such as morbidity or volume in our adjusted models. This survival benefit did not persist at 3 years, likely due to the aggressive nature of the disease.

Comparable Esophagectomy Outcomes by Surgeon Specialty: A NSQIP Analysis

BACKGROUND

A few observational studies have found that outcomes after esophagectomies by thoracic surgeons are better than those by general surgeons.

METHODS

Non-emergent esophagectomy cases were identified in the 2016-2017 American College of Surgeons NSQIP database. Associations between patient characteristics and outcomes by thoracic versus general surgeons were evaluated with univariate and multivariate logistic regression.

RESULTS

Of 1,606 cases, 886 (55.2%) were performed by thoracic surgeons. Those patients differed from patients treated by general surgeons in race (other/unknown 19.3% vs 7.8%; P<.001) but not in other baseline characteristics (age, sex, BMI, and comorbidities). Thoracic surgeons performed an open approach more frequently (48.9% vs 30.8%, P<.001) and had operative times that were 30 minutes shorter (P<.001). General surgeons had lower rates of reoperation (11.8% vs 17.2%; P=.003) and were more likely to treat postoperative leak with interventional means (6.3% vs 3.4%, P=.01). Thoracic surgeons were more likely to treat postoperative leak with reoperation (5.9% vs 3.6%, P=.01). There were no other differences in univariate comparison of outcomes between the two groups, including leak, readmission, and death. General surgery specialty was associated with lower risk of reoperation. Our multivariable model also found no relationship between general surgeon and risk of any complication (odds ratio 1.10; 95% CI .86 to 1.42).

DISCUSSION

In our large, national database study, we found that outcomes of esophagectomies by general surgeons were comparable with those by thoracic surgeons. General surgeons managed postoperative leaks differently than thoracic surgeons.

Postoperative outcomes in oesophagectomy with trainee involvement

BACKGROUND

The complexity of oesophageal surgery and the significant risk of morbidity necessitates that oesophagectomy is predominantly performed by a consultant surgeon, or a senior trainee under their supervision. The aim of this study was to determine the impact of trainee involvement in oesophagectomy on postoperative outcomes in an international multicentre setting.

METHODS

Data from the multicentre Oesophago-Gastric Anastomosis Study Group (OGAA) cohort study were analysed, which comprised prospectively collected data from patients undergoing oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer between April 2018 and December 2018. Procedures were grouped by the level of trainee involvement, and univariable and multivariable analyses were performed to compare patient outcomes across groups.

RESULTS

Of 2232 oesophagectomies from 137 centres in 41 countries, trainees were involved in 29.1 per cent of them (n = 650), performing only the abdominal phase in 230, only the chest and/or neck phases in 130, and all phases in 315 procedures. For procedures with a chest anastomosis, those with trainee involvement had similar 90-day mortality, complication and reoperation rates to consultant-performed oesophagectomies (P = 0.451, P = 0.318, and P = 0.382, respectively), while anastomotic leak rates were significantly lower in the trainee groups (P = 0.030). Procedures with a neck anastomosis had equivalent complication, anastomotic leak, and reoperation rates (P = 0.150, P = 0.430, and P = 0.632, respectively) in trainee-involved versus consultant-performed oesophagectomies, with significantly lower 90-day mortality in the trainee groups (P = 0.005).

CONCLUSION

Trainee involvement was not found to be associated with significantly inferior postoperative outcomes for selected patients undergoing oesophagectomy. The results support continued supervised trainee involvement in oesophageal cancer surgery.

Trainee performance in radical gastrectomy and its effect on outcomes

Background

This study aimed to determine whether trainee involvement in D2 gastrectomies was associated with adverse outcomes.

Methods

Data from a prospectively created database of consecutive patients undergoing open D2 total (TG) or subtotal (STG) gastrectomy with curative intent between January 2009 and January 2014 were reviewed. Short‐ and long‐term clinical outcomes were compared in patients operated on by consultants and those treated by trainees under consultant supervision.

Results

A total of 272 D2 open gastrectomies were performed, 123 (45·2 per cent) by trainees. There was no significant difference between consultants and trainees in median duration of surgery (TG: 240 (range 102–505) versus 240 (170–375) min respectively, P = 0·452; STG: 225 (150–580) versus 212 (125–380) min, P = 0·192), number of resected nodes (TG: 30 (13–101) versus 30 (11–102), P = 0·681; STG: 26 (5–103) versus 25 (1–63), P = 0·171), length of hospital stay (TG: 15 (7–78) versus 15 (8–65) days, P = 0·981; STG: 10 (6–197) versus 14 (7–85) days, P = 0·242), overall morbidity (TG: 44 versus 49 per cent, P = 0·314; STG: 34 versus 25 per cent, P = 0·113) or mortality (TG: 4 versus 2 per cent; P = 0·293). No difference in predicted 5‐year overall survival was noted between the two cohorts (TG: 68 per cent for consultants versus 77 per cent for trainees, P = 0·254; STG: 70 versus 75 per cent respectively, P = 0·512). The trainee cohort had lower median blood loss for both TG (360 (range 90–1200) ml versus 600 (70–2350) ml for consultants; P = 0·042) and STG (235 (50–1000) versus 360 (50–3000) ml respectively; P = 0·053).

Conclusion

Clinical outcomes were not compromised by supervised trainee involvement in D2 open gastrectomy.

Regionalization of esophagectomy: where are we now?

The morbidity and mortality benefits of performing high-risk operations in high-volume centers by high-volume surgeons are evident. Regionalization is a proposed strategy to leverage high-volume centers for esophagectomy to improve quality outcomes. Internationally, regionalization occurs under national mandates. Those mandates do not exist in the United States and spontaneous regionalization of esophagectomy has only modestly occurred in the U.S. Regionalization must strike a careful balance and not limit access to optimal oncologic care to our most vulnerable cancer patient populations in rural and disadvantaged socioeconomic areas. We reviewed the recent literature highlighting: the justification of hospital and surgeon annual esophagectomy volumes for regionalization; how safety performance metrics could influence regionalization; whether regionalization is occurring in the US; what impact regionalization may have on esophagectomy costs; and barriers to patients traveling to receive oncologic treatment at regionalized centers of excellence.

Outcomes of laparoscopic hiatal hernia repair based on surgical specialty: thoracic versus general surgeons

BACKGROUND

Hiatal Hernia Repairs (HHR) are performed by both general surgeons (GS) and thoracic surgeons (TS). However, there are limited literature with respect to outcomes of HHR based on specialty training. The objective of this study was to compare the utilization, perioperative outcomes, and cost for HHR performed by GS versus TS.

METHODS

The Vizient database was used to identify patients who underwent elective laparoscopic HHR between October 2014 and June 2018. Patients were grouped according to surgeon's specialty (GS vs. TS). Patient demographics and outcomes including in-hospital mortality were compared between groups.

RESULTS

During the study period 13,764 patients underwent HHR by either GS or TS. GS performed 9930 (72%) cases while TS performed 3834 (28%) cases. There was no significant difference between GS versus TS with regard to serious morbidity (1.28% vs. 1.30%, p = 0.97) or mortality (0.10% vs. 0.21%, p = 0.19). The mortality index was 0.24 for GS versus 0.45 for TS. Compared to TS, laparoscopic HHR performed by GS was associated with a shorter LOS (2.57 days vs. 2.72 days, p < 0.001) and lower mean hospital costs ($7139 vs. $8032, p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Within the context of academic centers, laparoscopic HHRs are mostly performed by GS with comparable outcome between general versus thoracic surgeons.

Mobility scores as a predictor of length of stay in general surgery: a prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Post-operative length of stay (LOS) is an increasingly important clinical indicator in general surgery. Despite this, no tool has been validated to predict LOS or readiness for discharge in general surgical patients. The de Morton Mobility Index (DEMMI) is a functional mobility assessment tool that has been validated in rehabilitation patient populations. In this prospective cohort study, we aimed to identify if trends in DEMMI scores were associated with discharge within 1 week and overall LOS in general surgical patients.

METHODS

A total of 161 patients who underwent elective gastrointestinal resections were included. DEMMI scores were performed preoperatively, on days 1, 2, 3 and 30 post-operative. Statistical analysis was performed to identify any association between DEMMI scores and discharge within 1 week and LOS.

RESULTS

Functional recovery (measured by achieving 80% of baseline DEMMI score by post-operative day 1) was significantly associated with discharge within 1 week. Presence of a stoma was associated with longer LOS. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve using functional recovery on post-operative day 1 as a predictor of discharge within 1 week is 0.772.

CONCLUSION

The DEMMI score is a fast, easy and useful tool to, on post-operative day 1, predict discharge within 1 week. The utility of this is to act as an anticipatory trigger for more proactive and efficient discharge planning in the early post-operative period, and there is potential to use the DEMMI as a comparator in clinical trials to assess functional recovery.

Examination of Nondesignated Preliminary Surgery Residents Recruited Since the Inception of Supplementary Offer and Acceptance Program: Lessons Learned From a Large Academic Program

PURPOSE

The majority of surgery programs roster non-designated preliminary (NDP) residents. We and others have reported on the success of NDP resident mentoring with regard to categorical position placement. Lacking is a focus on the candidates themselves and differences based on initial career of choice.

METHODS

NDP residents' files since the institution of SOAP were reviewed for demographics, initial career choice, financial burden, region of medical school of origin, application and interview history, and pre-screen interview candidate score (high score of 22 - data includes USMLE scores, major clerkship grades, and AOA) used for categorical recruitment.

RESULTS

From 2012-16 79 NDP residents have been recruited at UCDenver (82% via SOAP). Median age was 28 years, majority were single (73%), and male (82%). Thirty percent belonged to an under-represented minority group. Mean debt was $156,000 but 20% owe over $250,000. 90% attended US medical schools with 65% from the NRMP "South" region. 86% were recruited as fourth year students. NDPs were categorized as failing to match in general surgery (38%), surgical subspecialties (47%), or other (15%). NDPs applied to median of 68 programs (range 7-200) and granted a median of 8 interviews (range 0-24). NDPs had a mean pre-screening interview score of 13 out of 22 and only 9% would have met the standard threshold to obtain a categorical surgery interview. There were no differences in pre-screening scores in the three groups. 95% NDPs (excluding present year) successfully completed their R1 year (three resigned - one obtained a general surgery spot mid-year and two after matching in non-general surgery fields). 68% NDPs placed in categorical positions after the R1 year. The placement was better for the surgical subspecialty group compared to the other two.

CONCLUSIONS

The bias is that due to a more competitive applicant pool recruiting NDPs from surgical subspecialties would be optimal. However, those unmatched surgical subspecialty candidates are no better academically than the unmatched general surgery group, often have career interests that do not always align with scheduled rotations, and may not feel compelled to complete the year if they match. They place minimally better when accounting for those unmatched general surgery NDP R1s continuing as NDP R2s. Ultimately the success in a non-designated preliminary R1 surgery program is alignment of clinical educational opportunities with the needs of the trainee.

Impact of Surgeon Specialty on Perioperative Outcomes of Surgery for Benign Esophageal Diseases: A NSQIP Analysis

BACKGROUND

Surgery for benign esophageal disease is mostly performed either by general surgeons (GS) or cardiothoracic surgeons (CTS) in the United States. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of surgeon specialty on perioperative outcomes of surgery for benign esophageal diseases.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We have conducted a retrospective analysis using the ACS-NSQIP during the period of 2006-2013. Patients who underwent paraesophageal hernia (PEH) repair, gastric fundoplication, or Heller esophagomyotomy were divided into two groups according to the specialty of the surgeon (GS or CTS). Outcomes compared between the two groups using multivariable logistic regression included 30-day mortality, overall morbidity, discharge destination, hospital length of stay (LOS), and readmission rates.

RESULTS

Most of the surgeries were performed by general surgeons (PEH: 97.1%; fundoplication: 97.6%; Heller: 91.6%). Patients had lower comorbidities, better physical condition, and underwent a laparoscopic approach more frequently in the GS group. Regression analysis showed that GS group had a lower mortality rate (operating room, 0.44; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.23-0.86; P = .017), shorter LOS, and more home discharge for patients undergoing PEH repair. Mortality, morbidity, readmission, LOS, and home discharge were comparable between GS and CTS in fundoplication and Heller esophagomyotomy.

CONCLUSION

GS perform most of esophageal surgeries for benign diseases. GS group has better outcomes in PEH repair compared with CTS, whereas there is no difference in the overall outcomes between GS and CTS in fundoplication and Heller esophagomyotomy. These results show that specialization is not always the answer to better outcomes. Difference in outcomes, however, might be related to disease severity, approach needed, or case volume.