Literature DB >> 28857809

Learning Curve and Associated Morbidity of Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy: A Retrospective Multicenter Study.

Frans van Workum1, Marianne H B C Stenstra1, Gijs H K Berkelmans2, Annelijn E Slaman3, Mark I van Berge Henegouwen3, Suzanne S Gisbertz3, Frits J H van den Wildenberg4, Fatih Polat4, Tomoyuki Irino5, Magnus Nilsson5, Grard A P Nieuwenhuijzen2, Misha D Luyer2, Eddy M Adang6, Gerjon Hannink7, Maroeska M Rovers8, Camiel Rosman1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the morbidity that is associated with the learning curve of minimally invasive esophagectomy.
BACKGROUND: Although learning curves have been described, it is currently unknown how much extra morbidity is associated with the learning curve of technically challenging surgical procedures.
METHODS: Prospectively collected data were retrospectively analyzed of all consecutive patients undergoing minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy in 4 European expert centers. The primary outcome parameter was anastomotic leakage. Secondary outcome parameters were operative time and textbook outcome ("optimal outcome"). Learning curves were plotted using weighted moving average and CUSUM analysis was used to determine after how many cases the plateau was reached. Learning associated morbidity was calculated with area under the curve analysis.
RESULTS: This study included 646 patients. Three of the 4 hospitals reached the plateau of 8% anastomotic leakage. The length of the learning curve was 119 cases. The mean incidence of anastomotic leakage decreased from 18.8% during the learning phase to 4.5% after the plateau had been reached (P < 0.001). Thirty-six extra patients (10.1% of all patients operated on during the learning curve) experienced learning associated anastomotic leakage, that could have been avoided if patients were operated by surgeons who had completed the learning curve. The incidence of textbook outcome increased from 28% to 53% and the mean operative time decreased from 344 minutes to 270 minutes.
CONCLUSIONS: A considerable number of 36 extra patients (10.1%) experienced learning associated anastomotic leakage. More research is urgently needed to investigate how learning associated morbidity can be reduced to increase patient safety during learning curves.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 28857809     DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000002469

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Surg        ISSN: 0003-4932            Impact factor:   12.969


  50 in total

1.  Implementation of Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy From a Randomized Controlled Trial Setting to National Practice.

Authors:  Sheraz R Markar; Melody Ni; Suzanne S Gisbertz; Leonie van der Werf; Jennifer Straatman; Donald van der Peet; Miguel A Cuesta; George B Hanna; Mark I van Berge Henegouwen
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2020-05-18       Impact factor: 44.544

Review 2.  Robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy: past, present and future.

Authors:  Gijsbert I van Boxel; B Feike Kingma; Frank J Voskens; Jelle P Ruurda; Richard van Hillegersberg
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2020-02       Impact factor: 2.895

3.  Pushing the envelope of minimally invasive esophagectomy.

Authors:  Chien-Hung Chiu; Yin-Kai Chao
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2019-10       Impact factor: 2.895

4.  Minimally invasive esophagectomy-behind patient-centered learning curves.

Authors:  Nikhil Panda; Christopher R Morse
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2019-09       Impact factor: 2.895

5.  The role of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy-how take care of patient security?

Authors:  Trond A Buanes
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2019-07

6.  Surgical team proficiency in minimally invasive esophagectomy is related to case volume and improves patient outcomes.

Authors:  Akihiko Okamura; Masayuki Watanabe; Ian Fukudome; Kotaro Yamashita; Masami Yuda; Masaru Hayami; Yu Imamura; Shinji Mine
Journal:  Esophagus       Date:  2018-02-26       Impact factor: 4.230

7.  Minimally Invasive Ivor Lewis Esophagectomy with Linear Stapled Anastomosis Associated with Low Leak and Stricture Rates.

Authors:  Moshim Kukar; Kfir Ben-David; June S Peng; Kristopher Attwood; Ryan M Thomas; Mark Hennon; Chukwumere Nwogu; Steven N Hochwald
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2019-07-16       Impact factor: 3.452

8.  Benchmark values for transthoracic esophagectomy are not set as the defined "best possible"-a validation study.

Authors:  Olli Helminen; Johanna Mrena; Eero Sihvo
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2018-07       Impact factor: 2.895

9.  Risk of chyle leak after robotic versus video-assisted thoracoscopic esophagectomy.

Authors:  Aaron R Dezube; Suden Kucukak; Luis E De León; Kostas Kostopanagiotou; Michael T Jaklitsch; Jon O Wee
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2021-03-03       Impact factor: 4.584

10.  Comparison of short-term outcomes from the International Oesophago-Gastric Anastomosis Audit (OGAA), the Esophagectomy Complications Consensus Group (ECCG), and the Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Audit (DUCA).

Authors: 
Journal:  BJS Open       Date:  2021-05-07
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.