Nathan J Curtis1,2, Jake D Foster1,2, Danilo Miskovic3, Chris S B Brown4, Peter J Hewett5, Sarah Abbott6, George B Hanna1, Andrew R L Stevenson7,8, Nader K Francis2,9. 1. Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, England. 2. Department of General Surgery, Yeovil District Hospital National Health Service Foundation Trust, Yeovil, England. 3. St Mark's Hospital, Northwick Park, Harrow, England. 4. National Health and Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. 5. Department of Surgery, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia. 6. Canterbury District Health Board, Christchurch, New Zealand. 7. Faculty of Medical and Biomedical Sciences, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. 8. Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Queensland, Australia. 9. University College London, London, England.
Abstract
Importance: Complex surgical interventions are inherently prone to variation yet they are not objectively measured. The reasons for outcome differences following cancer surgery are unclear. Objective: To quantify surgical skill within advanced laparoscopic procedures and its association with histopathological and clinical outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: This analysis of data and video from the Australasian Laparoscopic Cancer of Rectum (ALaCaRT) and 2-dimensional/3-dimensional (2D3D) multicenter randomized laparoscopic total mesorectal excision trials, which were conducted at 28 centers in Australia, the United Kingdom, and New Zealand, was performed from 2018 to 2019 and included 176 patients with clinical T1 to T3 rectal adenocarcinoma 15 cm or less from the anal verge. Case videos underwent blinded objective analysis using a bespoke performance assessment tool developed with a 62-international expert Delphi exercise and workshop, interview, and pilot phases. Interventions: Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision undertaken with curative intent by 34 credentialed surgeons. Main Outcomes and Measures: Histopathological (plane of mesorectal dissection, ALaCaRT composite end point success [mesorectal fascial plane, circumferential margin, ≥1 mm; distal margin, ≥1 mm]) and 30-day morbidity. End points were analyzed using surgeon quartiles defined by tool scores. Results: The laparoscopic total mesorectal excision performance tool was produced and shown to be reliable and valid for the specialist level (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.889; 95% CI, 0.832-0.926; P < .001). A substantial variation in tool scores was recorded (range, 25-48). Scores were associated with the number of intraoperative errors, plane of mesorectal dissection, and short-term patient morbidity, including the number and severity of complications. Upper quartile-scoring surgeons obtained excellent results compared with the lower quartile (mesorectal fascial plane: 93% vs 59%; number needed to treat [NNT], 2.9, P = .002; ALaCaRT end point success, 83% vs 58%; NNT, 4; P = .03; 30-day morbidity, 23% vs 50%; NNT, 3.7; P = .03). Conclusions and Relevance: Intraoperative surgical skill can be objectively and reliably measured in complex cancer interventions. Substantial variation in technical performance among credentialed surgeons is seen and significantly associated with clinical and pathological outcomes.
Importance: Complex surgical interventions are inherently prone to variation yet they are not objectively measured. The reasons for outcome differences following cancer surgery are unclear. Objective: To quantify surgical skill within advanced laparoscopic procedures and its association with histopathological and clinical outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: This analysis of data and video from the Australasian Laparoscopic Cancer of Rectum (ALaCaRT) and 2-dimensional/3-dimensional (2D3D) multicenter randomized laparoscopic total mesorectal excision trials, which were conducted at 28 centers in Australia, the United Kingdom, and New Zealand, was performed from 2018 to 2019 and included 176 patients with clinical T1 to T3 rectal adenocarcinoma 15 cm or less from the anal verge. Case videos underwent blinded objective analysis using a bespoke performance assessment tool developed with a 62-international expert Delphi exercise and workshop, interview, and pilot phases. Interventions: Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision undertaken with curative intent by 34 credentialed surgeons. Main Outcomes and Measures: Histopathological (plane of mesorectal dissection, ALaCaRT composite end point success [mesorectal fascial plane, circumferential margin, ≥1 mm; distal margin, ≥1 mm]) and 30-day morbidity. End points were analyzed using surgeon quartiles defined by tool scores. Results: The laparoscopic total mesorectal excision performance tool was produced and shown to be reliable and valid for the specialist level (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.889; 95% CI, 0.832-0.926; P < .001). A substantial variation in tool scores was recorded (range, 25-48). Scores were associated with the number of intraoperative errors, plane of mesorectal dissection, and short-term patient morbidity, including the number and severity of complications. Upper quartile-scoring surgeons obtained excellent results compared with the lower quartile (mesorectal fascial plane: 93% vs 59%; number needed to treat [NNT], 2.9, P = .002; ALaCaRT end point success, 83% vs 58%; NNT, 4; P = .03; 30-day morbidity, 23% vs 50%; NNT, 3.7; P = .03). Conclusions and Relevance: Intraoperative surgical skill can be objectively and reliably measured in complex cancer interventions. Substantial variation in technical performance among credentialed surgeons is seen and significantly associated with clinical and pathological outcomes.
Authors: Sheraz R Markar; Tom Wiggins; Melody Ni; Ewout W Steyerberg; J Jan B Van Lanschot; Mitsuru Sasako; George B Hanna Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2014-12-29 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Julia Kitz; Emmanouil Fokas; Tim Beissbarth; Philipp Ströbel; Christian Wittekind; Arndt Hartmann; Josef Rüschoff; Thomas Papadopoulos; Elisabeth Rösler; Peter Ortloff-Kittredge; Ulrich Kania; Hans Schlitt; Karl-Heinrich Link; Wolf Bechstein; Hans-Rudolf Raab; Ludger Staib; Christoph-Thomas Germer; Torsten Liersch; Rolf Sauer; Claus Rödel; Michael Ghadimi; Werner Hohenberger Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2018-08-15 Impact factor: 14.766
Authors: James Fleshman; Megan Branda; Daniel J Sargent; Anne Marie Boller; Virgilio George; Maher Abbas; Walter R Peters; Dipen Maun; George Chang; Alan Herline; Alessandro Fichera; Matthew Mutch; Steven Wexner; Mark Whiteford; John Marks; Elisa Birnbaum; David Margolin; David Larson; Peter Marcello; Mitchell Posner; Thomas Read; John Monson; Sherry M Wren; Peter W T Pisters; Heidi Nelson Journal: JAMA Date: 2015-10-06 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Andrew R L Stevenson; Michael J Solomon; John W Lumley; Peter Hewett; Andrew D Clouston; Val J Gebski; Lucy Davies; Kate Wilson; Wendy Hague; John Simes Journal: JAMA Date: 2015-10-06 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Andrew R L Stevenson; Michael J Solomon; Christopher S B Brown; John W Lumley; Peter Hewett; Andrew D Clouston; Val J Gebski; Kate Wilson; Wendy Hague; John Simes Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2019-04 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: N J Curtis; J A Conti; R Dalton; T A Rockall; A S Allison; J B Ockrim; I C Jourdan; J Torkington; S Phillips; J Allison; G B Hanna; N K Francis Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2019-01-17 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Saba Balvardi; Anitha Kammili; Melissa Hanson; Carmen Mueller; Melina Vassiliou; Lawrence Lee; Kevin Schwartzman; Julio F Fiore; Liane S Feldman Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2022-05-12 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Douglas S Swords; Brian K Bednarski; Craig A Messick; Matthew M Tillman; George J Chang; Y Nancy You Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2021-08-18 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Martin Wagner; Johanna M Brandenburg; Sebastian Bodenstedt; André Schulze; Alexander C Jenke; Antonia Stern; Marie T J Daum; Lars Mündermann; Fiona R Kolbinger; Nithya Bhasker; Gerd Schneider; Grit Krause-Jüttler; Hisham Alwanni; Fleur Fritz-Kebede; Oliver Burgert; Dirk Wilhelm; Johannes Fallert; Felix Nickel; Lena Maier-Hein; Martin Dugas; Marius Distler; Jürgen Weitz; Beat-Peter Müller-Stich; Stefanie Speidel Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2022-09-28 Impact factor: 3.453
Authors: Hamzeh Naghawi; Johnny Chau; Amin Madani; Pepa Kaneva; John Monson; Carmen Mueller; Lawrence Lee Journal: Tech Coloproctol Date: 2022-05-03 Impact factor: 3.699
Authors: Kristen Moloney; Monika Janda; Michael Frumovitz; Mario Leitao; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum; Emma Rossi; James L Nicklin; Marie Plante; Fabrice R Lecuru; Alessandro Buda; Andrea Mariani; Yee Leung; Sarah Elizabeth Ferguson; Rene Pareja; Rainer Kimmig; Pearl Shuang Ye Tong; Orla McNally; Naven Chetty; Kaijiang Liu; Ken Jaaback; Julio Lau; Soon Yau Joseph Ng; Henrik Falconer; Jan Persson; Russell Land; Fabio Martinelli; Andrea Garrett; Alon Altman; Adam Pendlebury; David Cibula; Roberto Altamirano; Donal Brennan; Thomas Edward Ind; Cornelis De Kroon; Ka Yu Tse; George Hanna; Andreas Obermair Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2021-03-04 Impact factor: 4.661
Authors: Mona W Schmidt; Caelan M Haney; Karl-Friedrich Kowalewski; Vasile V Bintintan; Mohammed Abu Hilal; Alberto Arezzo; Marcus Bahra; Marc G Besselink; Matthias Biebl; Luigi Boni; Michele Diana; Jan H Egberts; Lars Fischer; Nader Francis; Daniel A Hashimoto; Daniel Perez; Marlies Schijven; Moritz Schmelzle; Marek Soltes; Lee Swanstrom; Thilo Welsch; Beat P Müller-Stich; Felix Nickel Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2021-11-09 Impact factor: 3.453
Authors: Suzanne S Gisbertz; Camiel Rosman; Yassin Eddahchouri; Frans van Workum; Frits J H van den Wildenberg; Mark I van Berge Henegouwen; Fatih Polat; Harry van Goor; Jean-Pierre E N Pierie; Bastiaan R Klarenbeek Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2021-02-19 Impact factor: 4.584