Esophagus

, Volume 15, Issue 2, pp 115–121 | Cite as

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

  • Akihiko Okamura
  • Masayuki Watanabe
  • Ian Fukudome
  • Kotaro Yamashita
  • Masami Yuda
  • Masaru Hayami
  • Yu Imamura
  • Shinji Mine
Original Article
  • 34 Downloads

Abstract

Background

Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is being increasingly performed; however, it is still associated with high morbidity and mortality. The correlation between surgical team proficiency and patient load lacks clarity. This study evaluates surgical outcomes during the first 3-year period after establishment of a new surgical team.

Methods

A new surgical team was established in September 2013 by two expert surgeons having experience of performing more than 100 MIEs. We assessed 237 consecutive patients who underwent MIE for esophageal cancer and evaluated the impact of surgical team proficiency on postoperative outcomes, as well as the team learning curve.

Results

In the cumulative sum analysis, a point of downward inflection for operative time and blood loss was observed in case 175. After 175 cases, both operative time and blood loss significantly decreased (P < 0.001 and P < 0.001, respectively), and postoperative incidence of pneumonia significantly decreased from 18.9 to 6.5% (P = 0.024). Median postoperative hospital stay also decreased from 20 to 18 days (P = 0.022). Additionally, serum CRP levels on postoperative day 1 showed a significant, but weak inverse association with the number of cases (P = 0.024).

Conclusions

After 175 cases, both operative time and blood loss significantly decreased. In addition, the incidence of pneumonia decreased significantly. Additionally, surgical team proficiency may decrease serum CRP levels immediately after MIE. Surgical team proficiency based on team experience had beneficial effects on patients undergoing MIE.

Keywords

Minimally invasive esophagectomy Learning curve Volume-outcome Teamwork 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Ethical Statement

All procedures were performed in accordance with the ethical standards of our institutional review board and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1964 and later versions. All authors followed the policy concerning Informed Consent.

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Finks JF, Osborne NH, Birkmeyer JD. Trends in hospital volume and operative mortality for high-risk surgery. N Engl J Med. 2011;364:2128–37.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jafari MD, Halabi WJ, Smith BR, et al. A decade analysis of trends and outcomes of partial versus total esophagectomy in the United States. Ann Surg. 2013;258:450–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Takeuchi H, Miyata H, Gotoh M, et al. A risk model for esophagectomy using data of 5354 patients included in a Japanese nationwide web-based database. Ann Surg. 2014;260:259–66.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Visser E, van Rossum PSN, Verhoeven RHA, et al. Impact of weekday of esophagectomy on short-term and long-term oncological outcomes: a nationwide population-based cohort study in the Netherlands. Ann Surg. 2017;266:76–81.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cuschieri A, Shimi S, Banting S. Endoscopic oesophagectomy through a right thoracoscopic approach. J R Coll Surg Edinb. 1992;37:7–11.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Biere SS, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Maas KW, et al. Minimally invasive versus open oesophagectomy for patients with esophageal cancer: a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2012;379:1887–92.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Takeuchi H, Miyata H, Ozawa S, et al. Comparison of short-term outcomes between open and minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer using a nationwide database in Japan. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017;24:1821–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Derogar M, Sadr-Azodi O, Johar A, et al. Hospital and surgeon volume in relation to survival after esophageal cancer surgery in a population-based study. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:551–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Henneman D, Dikken JL, Putter H, et al. Centralization of esophagectomy: how far should we go? Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21:4068–74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mamidanna R, Ni Z, Anderson O, et al. Surgeon volume and cancer esophagectomy, gastrectomy, and pancreatectomy: a population-based study in England. Ann Surg. 2016;263:727–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nishigori T, Miyata H, Okabe H, et al. Impact of hospital volume on risk-adjusted mortality following oesophagectomy in Japan. Br J Surg. 2016;103:1880–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Osugi H, Takemura M, Higashino M, et al. Learning curve of video-assisted thoracoscopic esophagectomy and extensive lymphadenectomy for squamous cell cancer of the thoracic esophagus and results. Surg Endosc. 2003;17:515–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ninomiya I, Osugi H, Tomizawa N, et al. Learning of thoracoscopic radical esophagectomy: how can the learning curve be made short and flat? Dis Esophagus. 2010;23:618–26.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tapias LF, Morse CR. Minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy: description of a learning curve. J Am Coll Surg. 2014;218:1130–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Oshikiri T, Yasuda T, Yamamoto M, et al. Trainee competence in thoracoscopic esophagectomy in the prone position: evaluation using cumulative sum techniques. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2016;401:797–804.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Markar SR, Mackenzie H, Lagergren P, et al. Surgical proficiency gain and survival after esophagectomy for cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34:1528–36.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mackenzie H, Markar SR, Askari A, et al. National proficiency-gain curves for minimally invasive gastrointestinal cancer surgery. Br J Surg. 2016;103:88–96.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    van Workum F, Stenstra M, Berkelmans GHK, et al. Learning curve and associated morbidity of minimally invasive esophagectomy: a retrospective multicenter study. Ann Surg. 2017.  https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000002469.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sobin LH, Gospodarowicz MK, Wittekind C. TNM classification of malignant tumours. 7th ed. New York: Wiley-Blackwell; 2010.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004;240:205–13.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Toh Y, Sakaguchi Y, Ikeda O, et al. The triangulating stapling technique for cervical esophagogastric anastomosis after esophagectomy. Surg Today. 2009;39:201–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Yoshida N, Baba Y, Watanabe M, et al. Triangulating stapling technique covered with the pedicled omental flap for esophagogastric anastomosis: a safe anastomosis with fewer complications. J Am Coll Surg. 2015;220:e13–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bokhari MB, Patel CB, Ramos-Valadez DI, et al. Learning curve for robotic-assisted laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Surg Endosc. 2011;25:855–60.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Okrainec A, Ferri LE, Feldman LS, et al. Defining the learning curve in laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair: a CUSUM analysis. Surg Endosc. 2011;25:1083–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Halm EA, Lee C, Chassin MR. Is volume related to outcome in health care? A systematic review and methodologic critique of the literature. Ann Intern Med. 2002;137:511–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Law S, Wong KH, Kwok KF, et al. Predictive factors for postoperative pulmonary complications and mortality after esophagectomy for cancer. Ann Surg. 2004;240:791–800.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Yoshida N, Watanabe M, Baba Y, et al. Risk factors for pulmonary complications after esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. Surg Today. 2014;44:526–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Okamura A, Takeuchi H, Matsuda S, et al. Factors affecting cytokine change after esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22:3130–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Gelpke H, Grieder F, Decurtins M, et al. Recurrent laryngeal nerve monitoring during esophagectomy and mediastinal lymph node dissection. World J Surg. 2010;34:2379–82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Moorman DW. Building better teams in surgery. J Gastrointest Surg. 2009;13:12–3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Japan Esophageal Society and Springer Japan KK, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Akihiko Okamura
    • 1
  • Masayuki Watanabe
    • 1
  • Ian Fukudome
    • 1
  • Kotaro Yamashita
    • 1
  • Masami Yuda
    • 1
  • Masaru Hayami
    • 1
  • Yu Imamura
    • 1
  • Shinji Mine
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Gastroenterological Surgery, Gastroenterology CenterThe Cancer Institute, Hospital of Japanese Foundation for Cancer ResearchTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations