Two surgeons, one patient: the impact of surgeon-surgeon familiarity on patient outcomes following mastectomy with immediate reconstruction

The influence of familiarity between the surgeon and their assistant on patient outcomes: a prospective observational cohort study

BACKGROUND

The inverse relationship between increased surgical team familiarity and reduced operative time is established, but its effect on patient outcomes remains uncertain.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A prospective cohort study including operations by attending surgeons between 1 November 2020 and 31 December 2021 across fourteen surgical departments from four French university hospitals. Surgical team familiarity was measured as the cumulative number of previous operations performed by the same dyad of attending and assisting surgeons. Composite of adverse events within 30 days of surgery encompassed major surgical complication, unplanned reoperation, extended ICU stay, and death. We used multivariable generally estimated equations to model the association between patient outcomes and surgical team familiarity, using a logarithmic function. The model considered the clustering of operations within surgeons.

RESULTS

Our analysis included 8546 operations by 1109 surgical team dyads, involving 45 attending surgeons and 369 assisting surgeons. We observed a significant inverse association between surgical team familiarity and composite adverse events odds ratio [OR] 0.92 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.87-0.98), major surgical complications OR 0.93 (95% CI 0.88-0.99), and unplanned reoperations OR 0.88 (95% CI 0.78-0.99), with non-significant trends observed for extended ICU stays OR 0.88 (95% CI 0.75-1.04) and deaths OR 0.87 (95% CI 0.74-1.03). Within the first 15 collaborations, this was illustrated by a reduction in the occurrence of composite adverse events from 23.0% (95% CI 22.1%-24.0%) to 16.5% (95% CI 14.1%-18.8%), major surgical complications from 21.3% (95% CI 20.3%-22.2%) to 15.3% (95% CI 13.0%-17.5%), unplanned reoperations from 8.8% (95% CI 8.6%-9.1%) to 5.2% (95%CI 4.2%-6.1%), extended ICU stays from 4.3% (95% CI 4.1%-4.5%) to 3.1% (95% CI 2.0%-4.1%), and deaths from 2.3% (95% CI 2.1%-2.5%) to 1.4% (95% CI 0.9%-1.8%).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This study emphasizes that heightened familiarity among surgical teams is associated with a significant reduction in major adverse events. Building stable operating room teams should be a management priority to enhance patient outcomes.

Operating room organization and surgical performance: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Organizational factors may influence surgical outcomes, regardless of extensively studied factors such as patient preoperative risk and surgical complexity. This study was designed to explore how operating room organization determines surgical performance and to identify gaps in the literature that necessitate further investigation.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review according to PRISMA guidelines to identify original studies in Pubmed and Scopus from January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2019. Studies evaluating the association between five determinants (team composition, stability, teamwork, work scheduling, disturbing elements) and three outcomes (operative time, patient safety, costs) were included. Methodology was assessed based on criteria such as multicentric investigation, accurate population description, and study design.

RESULTS

Out of 2625 studies, 76 met inclusion criteria. Of these, 34 (44.7%) investigated surgical team composition, 15 (19.7%) team stability, 11 (14.5%) teamwork, 9 (11.8%) scheduling, and 7 (9.2%) examined the occurrence of disturbing elements in the operating room. The participation of surgical residents appeared to impact patient outcomes. Employing specialized and stable teams in dedicated operating rooms showed improvements in outcomes. Optimization of teamwork reduced operative time, while poor teamwork increased morbidity and costs. Disturbances and communication failures in the operating room negatively affected operative time and surgical safety.

CONCLUSION

While limited, existing scientific evidence suggests that operating room staffing and environment significantly influences patient outcomes. Prioritizing further research on these organizational drivers is key to enhancing surgical performance.

Operative Team Familiarity and Specialization at an Academic Medical Center

OBJECTIVE

To propose a framework for quantification of surgical team familiarity.

BACKGROUND

Operating room (OR) teamwork quality is associated with familiarity among team members and their individual specialization. We describe novel measures of OR team familiarity and specialty experience.

METHODS

Surgeon-scrub (SS) and surgeon-circulator (SC) teaming scores, defined as the pair's proportion of interactions relative to the surgeon's total cases in the preceding 6 months were calculated between 2017 and 2021 at an academic medical center. Nurse service-line (SL) experience scores were defined as the proportion of a nurse's cases performed within the given specialty. SS, SC, and nurse-SL scores were analyzed by specialty, case urgency, robotic approach, and surgeon academic rank. Two-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests were used to determine heterogeneity between distributions.

RESULTS

A total of 37,364 operations involving 150 attending surgeons and 222 nurses were analyzed. Median SS and SC scores were 0.08 (interquartile range: 0.03-0.19) and 0.06 (interquartile range: 0.03-0.13), respectively. Higher margin SLs, senior faculty rank, elective, and robotic cases were associated with greater SS, SC, and nurse-SL scores ( P <0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

These novel measures of teaming and specialization illustrate the low levels of OR team familiarity and objectively highlight differences that necessitate a deliberate evaluation of current OR scheduling practices.

Implant-based Breast Reconstruction after Mastectomy for Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Women undergoing implant-based reconstruction (IBR) after mastectomy for breast cancer have numerous options, including timing of IBR relative to radiation and chemotherapy, implant materials, anatomic planes, and use of human acellular dermal matrices. We conducted a systematic review to evaluate these options.

Methods

We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, CINAHL, and ClinicalTrials.gov for studies, from inception to March 23, 2021, without language restriction. We assessed risk of bias and strength of evidence (SoE) using standard methods.

Results

We screened 15,936 citations. Thirty-six mostly high or moderate risk of bias studies (48,419 patients) met criteria. Timing of IBR before or after radiation may result in comparable physical, psychosocial, and sexual well-being, and satisfaction with breasts (all low SoE), and probably comparable risks of implant failure/loss or explantation (moderate SoE). No studies addressed timing relative to chemotherapy. Silicone and saline implants may result in clinically comparable satisfaction with breasts (low SoE). Whether the implant is in the prepectoral or total submuscular plane may not impact risk of infections (low SoE). Acellular dermal matrix use probably increases the risk of implant failure/loss or need for explant surgery (moderate SoE) and may increase the risk of infections (low SoE). Risks of seroma and unplanned repeat surgeries for revision are probably comparable (moderate SoE), and risk of necrosis may be comparable with or without human acellular dermal matrices (low SoE).

Conclusions

Evidence regarding IBR options is mostly of low SoE. New high-quality research is needed, especially for timing, implant materials, and anatomic planes of implant placement.

Factors associated with postsurgical wound infections among breast cancer patients: A retrospective case-control record review

Women with non-metastatic breast cancer will be offered surgery as their first option. Unfortunately, studies have shown that the most common postoperative complication is surgical wound infection (SWI). We investigated the prevalence of SWI in breast cancer patients and identified the factors predictive of its development. The study was conducted at the breast cancer centre in Singapore. A retrospective case-control review of medical records was used. During the 2013 to 2016 study period, there were 657 postsurgical breast cancer patients with only 105 records eligible for the study. The sample consisted of one to four case:control (21:84), matched according to their age at the time of their surgery. Patients presenting with SWI were grouped into cases, while those without SWI were grouped into the controls. Chi-square test and Mann-Whitney U test were used to identify risk factors associated with SWI. Regression analysis of predictive variables from the univariate analyses was included. These variables were type of breast surgery, implants, comorbidities, previous surgery, previous chemotherapy, surgical drains, seroma, blood transfusion, surgeon department, and length of stay. The prevalence of SWI was 9%. Demographic, clinical, and comorbidities were not associated with SWI. However, multivariate analysis found that "surgeon department," "discharged with surgical drains," and "postoperative seroma" were predictive of SWI. Monitoring SWI is indispensable to minimise burdens on individuals and institutions. Health care professionals should identify high-risk patients based on the identified predictive variables. A cross-institutional record review of SWI in postoperative breast cancer patients should be conducted.

The role of three-dimensional printing in the surgical management of breast cancer

A patient-specific 3-dimensional printed model (3DPM) of a woman with breast cancer was created. Mastectomy was favored as BCS would necessitate significant breast size alteration due to the extent of disease. After review of the 3D printed model, the patient and surgeon agreed on breast-conserving surgery. Use of patient-specific 3DPM in the setting of breast cancer may aid patient decision making and surgical planning, leading to enhanced surgical and oncological outcomes.

Head and Neck Reconstructive Surgery: Characterization of the One-Team and Two-Team Approaches

PURPOSE

To the best of our knowledge, no studies have compared the patient profiles for 1- versus 2-team surgery within head and neck oncosurgery.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A retrospective study of the data from 2968 patients who had undergone concurrent head and neck extirpative and reconstructive surgery in the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (2010 to 2017) was conducted. Patients were stratified into 1- and 2-team surgery groups, and the demographic data were compared. Univariate analyses of the outcomes before and after propensity score matching were conducted.

RESULTS

Most ablative and reconstructive head and neck procedures (68.5%) were performed using a 1-team approach. The patients who had undergone 2-team surgery were more likely to have a higher American Society of Anesthesiologists classification (P < .001), to require mandibulectomy (P < .001) or glossectomy (P < .001), and to receive a microvascular free flap (P < .001) but were less likely to require parotidectomy (P < .001) or to receive a rotational flap (P < .001). Before propensity score matching, the patients undergoing 2-team surgery had longer operative times (P < .001), longer postoperative stays (P < .001), greater rates of a return to the operating room (P = .001), and an increased rate of complications (P < .001). After propensity score matching, the 2-team approach continued to have longer operative times (P < .001) and an increased incidence of complications (P < .001) but no significant differences in the length of stay or rate of return to the operating room after Bonferroni's correction.

CONCLUSIONS

Nationally, most head and neck ablative and reconstructive surgeries were completed by 1 team. More complicated reconstructive procedures involving microvascular free flaps have been more commonly performed by 2 teams, resulting in slightly longer operative times and greater associated complication rates.

It Takes Two: One Resects, One Reconstructs

Care of patients with advanced head and neck cancer is a multidisciplinary effort through all phases of care. Head and neck cancer surgery involves balancing oncologic control, functional preservation, and aesthetics. Given the advances in free tissue reconstruction, the majority of defects can be reconstructed using free tissue transfer flaps. A 2-team approach allows for early, continual communication and meticulous operative planning. Operations can be combined into a single effort. This approach maximizes efficiency and enables multidisciplinary collaboration for comprehensive surgical treatment. We present our experience and an outline of how responsibilities between the ablative and reconstructive teams are shared.

The impact of improving teamwork on patient outcomes in surgery: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

The aviation industry pioneered formalised crew training in order to improve safety and reduce consequences of non-technical error. This formalised training has been successfully adapted and used to in the field of surgery to improve post-operative patient outcomes. The need to implement teamwork training as an integral part of a surgical programme is increasingly being recognised. We aim to systematically review the impact of surgical teamwork training on post-operative outcomes.

METHODS

Two independent researchers systematically searched MEDLINE and Embase in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Studies were screened and subjected to inclusion/exclusion criteria. Study characteristics and outcomes were reported and analysed.

RESULTS

Our initial search identified 2720 articles. Following duplicate removal, title and abstract screening, 107 full text articles were analysed. Eight articles met our inclusion criteria. Overall, three articles supported a positive effect of good teamwork on post-operative patient outcomes. We identified key areas in study methodology that can be improved upon, including small cohort size, lack of unified training programme, and short training duration, should future studies be designed and implemented in this field.

CONCLUSION

At present, there is insufficient evidence to support the hypothesis that teamwork training interventions improve patient outcomes. We believe that non-significant and conflicting results can be attributed to flaws in methodology and non-uniform training methods. With increasing amounts of evidence in this field, we predict a positive association between teamwork training and patient outcomes will come to light.

Comparison of Delayed and Immediate Tissue Expander Breast Reconstruction in the Setting of Postmastectomy Radiation Therapy

BACKGROUND

Despite the continued demand for immediate prosthetic breast reconstruction, some suggest that delayed reconstruction may reduce complications. However, with limited comparative data available, the extent of this benefit is unclear, particularly in the setting of postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT). This study evaluates outcomes after mastectomy and delayed tissue expander reconstruction (DTER) or immediate tissue expander reconstruction (ITER).

METHODS

A retrospective review of 893 consecutive patients (1201 breasts) who underwent mastectomy with DTER or ITER at one institution during a 10-year period was performed. Relevant patient factors, including the use of PMRT and complication rates, were recorded. Complications were categorized by type and end-outcome, including nonoperative (no further surgery), operative (further surgery except explantation), and explantation. Statistics were done using Student t test and Fisher exact test.

RESULTS

There were no differences in clinical risk factors between ITER (n = 1127 breasts) and DTER (n = 74 breasts) patients. Delayed tissue expander reconstruction breasts had lower rates of mastectomy flap necrosis (P = 0.003), and nonoperative (P = 0.01) and operative (P = 0.001) complications relative to ITER. In ITER breasts, PMRT increased operative complications (P = 0.02) and explantation (P = 0.0005), resulting in a decrease in overall, 2-stage success rate (P < 0.0001). In contrast, there were no differences in outcomes between PMRT and non-PMRT DTER breasts.

CONCLUSIONS

This comparative study, the largest to date, suggests that DTER is a viable reconstructive alternative that may minimize certain complications over ITER, including in patients needing PMRT. However, unlike with ITER, surgeons can evaluate patients' potential for success with DTER based on skin flap appearance after both mastectomy and PMRT (when present). As a result, the benefits of DTER may also be due to a careful patient selection process preoperatively. The choice of DTER should, therefore, be balanced against both individual patient risk factors and the psychological appeal of immediate reconstruction.

Breast reconstruction following conservative mastectomies: predictors of complications and outcomes

Breast reconstruction can be performed using a variety of techniques, most commonly categorized into an alloplastic approach or an autologous tissue method. Both strategies have certain risk factors that influence reconstructive outcomes and complication rates. In alloplastic breast reconstruction, surgical outcomes and complication rates are negatively impacted by radiation, smoking, increased body mass index (BMI), hypertension, and prior breast conserving therapy. Surgical factors such as the type of implant material, undergoing immediate breast reconstruction, and the use of fat grafting can improve patient satisfaction and aesthetic outcomes. In autologous breast reconstruction, radiation, increased BMI, certain previous abdominal surgery, smoking, and delayed reconstruction are associated with higher complication rates. Though a pedicled transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous (TRAM) flap is the most common type of flap used for autologous breast reconstruction, pedicled TRAMs are more likely to be associated with fat necrosis than a free TRAM or deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap. Fat grafting can also be used to improve aesthetic outcomes in autologous reconstruction. This article focuses on factors, both patient and surgical, that are predictors of complications and outcomes in breast reconstruction.

Assessment of patient factors, surgeons, and surgeon teams in immediate implant-based breast reconstruction outcomes

BACKGROUND

Outcome studies of immediate implant-based breast reconstruction have focused largely on patient factors, whereas the relative impact of the surgeon as a contributing variable is not known. As the procedure requires collaboration of both a surgical oncologist and a plastic surgeon, the effect of the surgeon team interaction can have a significant impact on outcome. This study examines outcomes in implant-based breast reconstruction and the association with patient characteristics, surgeon, and surgeon team familiarity.

METHODS

A retrospective review of 3142 consecutive implant-based breast reconstruction mastectomy procedures at one institution was performed. Infection and skin necrosis rates were measured. Predictors of outcomes were identified by unadjusted logistic regression followed by multivariate logistic regression. Surgeon teams were grouped according to number of cases performed together.

RESULTS

Patient characteristics remain the most important predictors for outcomes in implant-based breast reconstruction, with odds ratios above those of surgeon variables. The authors observed significant differences in the rate of skin necrosis between surgical oncologists with an approximately two-fold difference between surgeons with the highest and lowest rates. Surgeon teams that worked together on fewer than 150 procedures had higher rates of infection.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient characteristics are the most important predictors for surgical outcomes in implant-based breast reconstruction, but surgeons and surgeon teams are also important variables. High-volume surgeon teams achieve lower rates of infection. This study highlights the need to examine modifiable risk factors associated with optimum implant-based breast reconstruction outcomes, which include patient and provider characteristics and the surgical team treating the patient.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Risk, III.

Socioeconomic and geographic differences in immediate reconstruction after mastectomy in the United States

Disparities are evident in breast cancer diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes. This study examines multiple socioeconomic and geographic regions across the US to determine if disparities exist in the type of reconstruction obtained after mastectomy. This is a retrospective study evaluating socioeconomic and geographic variables of 14,764 women who underwent mastectomy in 2008 using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS). Statistical analysis was performed on three groups of women: patients without reconstruction (NR), patients who underwent breast implant/tissue expander reconstruction (TE), and patients with autologous reconstruction such as free or pedicled flaps (FLAP). The majority of patients (63.9%) had NR, while 23.9% had TE and 12.2% underwent FLAP. Compared to patients with NR, women with TE or FLAP were younger (64.9 years versus 51.3 and 51.1 years, p < 0.001), had fewer chronic conditions (2.60 and 2.54 chronic conditions for TE and FLAP respectively versus 3.85 for NR, p < 0.001) and higher mean hospital charges ($42,850 TE and $48,680 FLAP versus $22,300 NR, p < 0.001). Both Medicare and Medicaid insurance carriers had a higher proportion of women that did not get reconstructed compared to other insurance types (p < 0.001). Compared to NR, reconstructed women more often lived in urban areas and zip codes with higher average incomes (p < 0.001). This is the first national study analyzing insurance type and geographic variations to show statistically significant disparities in rate and type of immediate reconstruction after mastectomy. These inequalities need to be addressed to extend immediate reconstruction options to all women undergoing mastectomy.