OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of routine anastomotic leak testing (performed to screen for leaks) vs selective testing (performed to evaluate for a suspected leak in a higher-risk or technically difficult anastomosis) on outcomes in colorectal surgery because the value of provocative testing of colorectal anastomoses as a quality improvement metric has yet to be determined. DESIGN: Observational, prospectively designed cohort study. SETTING: Data from Washington state's Surgical Care and Outcomes Assessment Program (SCOAP). PATIENTS: Patients undergoing elective left-sided colon or rectal resections at 40 SCOAP hospitals from October 1, 2005, to December 31, 2009. INTERVENTIONS: Use of leak testing, distinguishing procedures that were performed at hospitals where leak testing was selective (<90% use) or routine (≥ 90% use) in a given calendar quarter. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Adjusted odds ratio of a composite adverse event (CAE) (unplanned postoperative intervention and/or in-hospital death) at routine testing hospitals. RESULTS: Among 3449 patients (mean [SD] age, 58.8 [14.8] years; 55.0% women), the CAE rate was 5.5%. Provocative leak testing increased (from 56% in the starting quarter to 76% in quarter 16) and overall rates of CAE decreased (from 7.0% in the starting quarter to 4.6% in quarter 16; both P ≤ .01) over time. Among patients at hospitals that performed routine leak testing, we found a reduction of more than 75% in the adjusted risk of CAEs (odds ratio, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.05-0.99). CONCLUSION: Routine leak testing of left-sided colorectal anastomoses appears to be associated with a reduced rate of CAEs within the SCOAP network and meets many of the criteria of a worthwhile quality improvement metric.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of routine anastomotic leak testing (performed to screen for leaks) vs selective testing (performed to evaluate for a suspected leak in a higher-risk or technically difficult anastomosis) on outcomes in colorectal surgery because the value of provocative testing of colorectal anastomoses as a quality improvement metric has yet to be determined. DESIGN: Observational, prospectively designed cohort study. SETTING: Data from Washington state's Surgical Care and Outcomes Assessment Program (SCOAP). PATIENTS: Patients undergoing elective left-sided colon or rectal resections at 40 SCOAP hospitals from October 1, 2005, to December 31, 2009. INTERVENTIONS: Use of leak testing, distinguishing procedures that were performed at hospitals where leak testing was selective (<90% use) or routine (≥ 90% use) in a given calendar quarter. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Adjusted odds ratio of a composite adverse event (CAE) (unplanned postoperative intervention and/or in-hospital death) at routine testing hospitals. RESULTS: Among 3449 patients (mean [SD] age, 58.8 [14.8] years; 55.0% women), the CAE rate was 5.5%. Provocative leak testing increased (from 56% in the starting quarter to 76% in quarter 16) and overall rates of CAE decreased (from 7.0% in the starting quarter to 4.6% in quarter 16; both P ≤ .01) over time. Among patients at hospitals that performed routine leak testing, we found a reduction of more than 75% in the adjusted risk of CAEs (odds ratio, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.05-0.99). CONCLUSION: Routine leak testing of left-sided colorectal anastomoses appears to be associated with a reduced rate of CAEs within the SCOAP network and meets many of the criteria of a worthwhile quality improvement metric.
Authors: Laura H Rosenberger; Amber Shada; Lane A Ritter; David M Mauro; Mark J Mentrikoski; Sanford H Feldman; Daniel E Kleiner Journal: Clin Transl Sci Date: 2014-01-23 Impact factor: 4.689
Authors: Madhu Muralee; Nithish R Acharya; Wagh Mira Sudham; Arun Peter Mathew; Kurian Cherian; K Chandramohan; Paul Augustine; M Iqbal Ahamed Journal: Indian J Surg Oncol Date: 2017-07-11
Authors: Vahagn C Nikolian; Neil S Kamdar; Scott E Regenbogen; Arden M Morris; John C Byrn; Pasithorn A Suwanabol; Darrell A Campbell; Samantha Hendren Journal: Surgery Date: 2017-02-21 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Vlad V Simianu; Anirban Basu; Rafael Alfonso-Cristancho; Richard C Thirlby; Abraham D Flaxman; David R Flum Journal: J Surg Res Date: 2016-07-04 Impact factor: 2.192
Authors: Anne M Stey; Robert H Brook; Emmett Keeler; Michael T Harris; Tomas Heimann; Randolph M Steinhagen Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2014-03-14 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Vlad V Simianu; Arden M Morris; Thomas K Varghese; Michael P Porter; Jeffrey A Henderson; Dedra S Buchwald; David R Flum; Sara H Javid Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2016-01-09 Impact factor: 2.565