BACKGROUND: Anastomotic leak is a major source of morbidity in colorectal operations and has become an area of interest in performance metrics. It is unclear whether anastomotic leak is associated primarily with surgeons' technical performance or explained better by patient characteristics and institutional factors. We sought to establish if anastomotic leak could serve as a valid quality metric in colorectal operations by evaluating provider variation after adjusting for patient factors. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of colorectal resection patients in the Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative. Clinically relevant patient and operative factors were tested for association with anastomotic leak. Hierarchical logistic regression was used to derive risk-adjusted rates of anastomotic leak. RESULTS: Of 9,192 colorectal resections, 244 (2.7%) had a documented anastomotic leak. The incidence of anastomotic leak was 3.0% for patients with pelvic anastomoses and 2.5% for those with intra-abdominal anastomoses. Multivariable analysis showed that a greater operative duration, male sex, body mass index >30 kg/m2, tobacco use, chronic immunosuppressive medications, thrombocytosis (platelet count >400 × 109/L), and urgent/emergency operations were independently associated with anastomotic leak (C-statistic = 0.75). After accounting for patient and procedural risk factors, 5 hospitals had a significantly greater incidence of postoperative anastomotic leak. CONCLUSION: This population-based study shows that risk factors for anastomotic leak include male sex, obesity, tobacco use, immunosuppression, thrombocytosis, greater operative duration, and urgent/emergency operation; models including these factors predict most of the variation in anastomotic leak rates. This study suggests that anastomotic leak can serve as a valid metric that can identify opportunities for quality improvement.
BACKGROUND:Anastomotic leak is a major source of morbidity in colorectal operations and has become an area of interest in performance metrics. It is unclear whether anastomotic leak is associated primarily with surgeons' technical performance or explained better by patient characteristics and institutional factors. We sought to establish if anastomotic leak could serve as a valid quality metric in colorectal operations by evaluating provider variation after adjusting for patient factors. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of colorectal resection patients in the Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative. Clinically relevant patient and operative factors were tested for association with anastomotic leak. Hierarchical logistic regression was used to derive risk-adjusted rates of anastomotic leak. RESULTS: Of 9,192 colorectal resections, 244 (2.7%) had a documented anastomotic leak. The incidence of anastomotic leak was 3.0% for patients with pelvic anastomoses and 2.5% for those with intra-abdominal anastomoses. Multivariable analysis showed that a greater operative duration, male sex, body mass index >30 kg/m2, tobacco use, chronic immunosuppressive medications, thrombocytosis (platelet count >400 × 109/L), and urgent/emergency operations were independently associated with anastomotic leak (C-statistic = 0.75). After accounting for patient and procedural risk factors, 5 hospitals had a significantly greater incidence of postoperative anastomotic leak. CONCLUSION: This population-based study shows that risk factors for anastomotic leak include male sex, obesity, tobacco use, immunosuppression, thrombocytosis, greater operative duration, and urgent/emergency operation; models including these factors predict most of the variation in anastomotic leak rates. This study suggests that anastomotic leak can serve as a valid metric that can identify opportunities for quality improvement.
Authors: Nuh N Rahbari; Jürgen Weitz; Werner Hohenberger; Richard J Heald; Brendan Moran; Alexis Ulrich; Torbjörn Holm; W Douglas Wong; Emmanuel Tiret; Yoshihiro Moriya; Søren Laurberg; Marcel den Dulk; Cornelis van de Velde; Markus W Büchler Journal: Surgery Date: 2009-12-11 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: David A Share; Darrell A Campbell; Nancy Birkmeyer; Richard L Prager; Hitinder S Gurm; Mauro Moscucci; Marianne Udow-Phillips; John D Birkmeyer Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2011-04 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: K C M J Peeters; R A E M Tollenaar; C A M Marijnen; E Klein Kranenbarg; W H Steup; T Wiggers; H J Rutten; C J H van de Velde Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2005-02 Impact factor: 6.939
Authors: Neil H Hyman; Turner Osler; Peter Cataldo; Elizabeth H Burns; Steven R Shackford Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2008-11-07 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: John Tapper; Stefan Arver; Torbjörn Holm; Matteo Bottai; Mikael Machado; Ravi Jasuja; Anna Martling; Christian Buchli Journal: Eur J Surg Oncol Date: 2019-07-19 Impact factor: 4.424
Authors: Timothy S Nugent; Michael E Kelly; Noel E Donlon; Matthew R Fahy; John O Larkin; Paul H McCormick; Brian J Mehigan Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2021-04-01 Impact factor: 2.571
Authors: Jachym Rosendorf; Marketa Klicova; Lenka Cervenkova; Richard Palek; Jana Horakova; Andrea Klapstova; Petr Hosek; Vladimira Moulisova; Lukas Bednar; Vaclav Tegl; Ondrej Brzon; Zbynek Tonar; Vladislav Treska; David Lukas; Vaclav Liska Journal: In Vivo Date: 2021 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 2.155
Authors: Kristen K Rumer; Julien Hedou; Amy Tsai; Jakob Einhaus; Franck Verdonk; Natalie Stanley; Benjamin Choisy; Edward Ganio; Adam Bonham; Danielle Jacobsen; Beata Warrington; Xiaoxiao Gao; Martha Tingle; Tiffany N McAllister; Ramin Fallahzadeh; Dorien Feyaerts; Ina Stelzer; Dyani Gaudilliere; Kazuo Ando; Andrew Shelton; Arden Morris; Electron Kebebew; Nima Aghaeepour; Cindy Kin; Martin S Angst; Brice Gaudilliere Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2022-03-01 Impact factor: 12.969