S H E M Clermonts1,2, Y T van Loon3, J Stijns3, H Pottel4, D K Wasowicz3, D D E Zimmerman3. 1. Department of Surgery, Elisabeth-TweeSteden Hospital, 5042 AD, Tilburg, The Netherlands. Shem.Clermonts@gmail.com. 2. Department of Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands. Shem.Clermonts@gmail.com. 3. Department of Surgery, Elisabeth-TweeSteden Hospital, 5042 AD, Tilburg, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Catholic University Leuven, Kortrijk, Belgium.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The current method of choice for local resection of benign and selected malignant rectal tumors is transanal endoscopic microsurgery. Transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS) yields similar oncological results and better patient reported outcomes when compared to transanal endoscopic micro surgery. However, due to the technical complexity of TAMIS, a significant learning curve has been suggested. Data on the surgical learning curve are limited. The aim of our study was to investigate surgeon specific learning curves for TAMIS procedures for the local excision of selected rectal tumors, and analyze the effects of proctoring on operating time and outcome. METHODS: The current study was prospective of all TAMIS procedures performed by two surgeons from October 2010 to November 2017. Margin positivity, specimen fragmentation, adverse events and operative time were evaluated with a cumulative sum analysis to determine the number of procedures required to reach proficiency. Cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis was used to determine trends in changes over time. RESULTS: The earliest adopter, surgeon A, performed 103 procedures, was not proctored and developed the standardized institutional program. Surgeon B, performed 26 cases, had the benefit of a proctorship and availability of a standardized program. The CUSUM curve for operative time showed a change after 36 cases for surgeon A and after 10 cases for surgeon B. For margin positivity proficiency was reached after 31 and 6 cases for surgeon A and B, respectively. The complications curve for surgeon A showed a three-phase learning curve with a decrease after the 26th case whereas surgeon B only had one (3.8%) complication in the learning phase with no change point in the CUSUM curve. Comparing pre- and post-proficiency periods there was a decrease in operating time for both surgeon A (84.4 ± 47.3 to 55.9 ± 30.1 min) and surgeon B (90.6 ± 64.to 53 ± 26.5 min; p < 0.001). Overall margin positivity rates decreased non significantly from 21.7 to 4.8% (p = 0.23). Complications were higher in the pre-proficiency period (21.7% vs. 13.0%; p = 0.02). Surgeon A had significantly more postoperative complications in pre-proficiency phase when compared to surgeon B (25% vs. none, p < 0.001), in the post-proficiency phase there was no statistically significant difference between both surgeons (p = 0.08). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that to reach satisfactory results for TAMIS, 18-31 procedures are required. Standardized institutional operative protocols together with proficient proctorship may contribute to a shorter learning curve with fewer cases (6-10) required to reach proficiency.
BACKGROUND: The current method of choice for local resection of benign and selected malignant rectal tumors is transanal endoscopic microsurgery. Transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS) yields similar oncological results and better patient reported outcomes when compared to transanal endoscopic micro surgery. However, due to the technical complexity of TAMIS, a significant learning curve has been suggested. Data on the surgical learning curve are limited. The aim of our study was to investigate surgeon specific learning curves for TAMIS procedures for the local excision of selected rectal tumors, and analyze the effects of proctoring on operating time and outcome. METHODS: The current study was prospective of all TAMIS procedures performed by two surgeons from October 2010 to November 2017. Margin positivity, specimen fragmentation, adverse events and operative time were evaluated with a cumulative sum analysis to determine the number of procedures required to reach proficiency. Cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis was used to determine trends in changes over time. RESULTS: The earliest adopter, surgeon A, performed 103 procedures, was not proctored and developed the standardized institutional program. Surgeon B, performed 26 cases, had the benefit of a proctorship and availability of a standardized program. The CUSUM curve for operative time showed a change after 36 cases for surgeon A and after 10 cases for surgeon B. For margin positivity proficiency was reached after 31 and 6 cases for surgeon A and B, respectively. The complications curve for surgeon A showed a three-phase learning curve with a decrease after the 26th case whereas surgeon B only had one (3.8%) complication in the learning phase with no change point in the CUSUM curve. Comparing pre- and post-proficiency periods there was a decrease in operating time for both surgeon A (84.4 ± 47.3 to 55.9 ± 30.1 min) and surgeon B (90.6 ± 64.to 53 ± 26.5 min; p < 0.001). Overall margin positivity rates decreased non significantly from 21.7 to 4.8% (p = 0.23). Complications were higher in the pre-proficiency period (21.7% vs. 13.0%; p = 0.02). Surgeon A had significantly more postoperative complications in pre-proficiency phase when compared to surgeon B (25% vs. none, p < 0.001), in the post-proficiency phase there was no statistically significant difference between both surgeons (p = 0.08). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that to reach satisfactory results for TAMIS, 18-31 procedures are required. Standardized institutional operative protocols together with proficient proctorship may contribute to a shorter learning curve with fewer cases (6-10) required to reach proficiency.
Authors: C R Ramsay; A M Grant; S A Wallace; P H Garthwaite; A F Monk; I T Russell Journal: Int J Technol Assess Health Care Date: 2000 Impact factor: 2.188
Authors: David M Holzhey; Stephan Jacobs; Thomas Walther; Michael Mochalski; Friedrich W Mohr; Volkmar Falk Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2007-09 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: C Langer; T Liersch; M Süss; A Siemer; P Markus; B M Ghadimi; L Füzesi; H Becker Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2002-12-14 Impact factor: 2.571
Authors: Stefan H E M Clermonts; Yu-Ting van Loon; Dareczka K Wasowicz; Barbara S Langenhoff; David D E Zimmerman Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2018-03-05 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Dimitrios Christoforidis; Hyeon-Min Cho; Matthew R Dixon; Anders F Mellgren; Robert D Madoff; Charles O Finne Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2009-05 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Alexander Lebedyev; Hagit Tulchinsky; Micha Rabau; Joseph M Klausner; Michael Krausz; Simon D Duek Journal: Tech Coloproctol Date: 2009-07-31 Impact factor: 3.781