Early outcomes of surgery for oesophageal cancer in a thoracic regional unit. Can we maintain training without compromising results?

Postoperative outcomes in oesophagectomy with trainee involvement

BACKGROUND

The complexity of oesophageal surgery and the significant risk of morbidity necessitates that oesophagectomy is predominantly performed by a consultant surgeon, or a senior trainee under their supervision. The aim of this study was to determine the impact of trainee involvement in oesophagectomy on postoperative outcomes in an international multicentre setting.

METHODS

Data from the multicentre Oesophago-Gastric Anastomosis Study Group (OGAA) cohort study were analysed, which comprised prospectively collected data from patients undergoing oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer between April 2018 and December 2018. Procedures were grouped by the level of trainee involvement, and univariable and multivariable analyses were performed to compare patient outcomes across groups.

RESULTS

Of 2232 oesophagectomies from 137 centres in 41 countries, trainees were involved in 29.1 per cent of them (n = 650), performing only the abdominal phase in 230, only the chest and/or neck phases in 130, and all phases in 315 procedures. For procedures with a chest anastomosis, those with trainee involvement had similar 90-day mortality, complication and reoperation rates to consultant-performed oesophagectomies (P = 0.451, P = 0.318, and P = 0.382, respectively), while anastomotic leak rates were significantly lower in the trainee groups (P = 0.030). Procedures with a neck anastomosis had equivalent complication, anastomotic leak, and reoperation rates (P = 0.150, P = 0.430, and P = 0.632, respectively) in trainee-involved versus consultant-performed oesophagectomies, with significantly lower 90-day mortality in the trainee groups (P = 0.005).

CONCLUSION

Trainee involvement was not found to be associated with significantly inferior postoperative outcomes for selected patients undergoing oesophagectomy. The results support continued supervised trainee involvement in oesophageal cancer surgery.

Registrar performance in minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy and effects on postoperative outcomes

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) is nowadays an established standard procedure for non-locally advanced pancreatic lesions without celio-mesenteric vascular invasion. However, little is known about how the involvement of junior surgeons in MIDP affects postoperative outcomes. We performed a retrospective case series study in order to determine whether registrar involvement in MIDP is associated with adverse outcomes.

METHODS

Data were analyzed from a prospectively created database of consecutive patients undergoing MIDP. Only data from 91 patients who underwent MIDP for non-PDAC lesions were included. Patients were divided in 3 groups: Consultant P1 (first 20 MIDP, n=20), Consultant P2 (after 20 MIDP, n=44), and Registrar group (n=27). Conversion rates and 90-day postoperative outcomes were compared.

RESULTS

Conversion rates were 5%, 0%, and 14% in Consultant P1 and P2 and Registrar groups, respectively (P1 vs. P2, p = 0.312 and P1 vs. Registrar, p=0.376). Only Comprehensive Complication Index was higher in Registrar group compared to Consultant P1 group (13 vs. 3.7; p = 0.041). Comparison between Consultant P2 and Registrar groups resulted in a significant higher conversion rate (0 vs. 14%, p = 0.029), increased blood loss (77 vs. 263 ml, p = 0.018), and longer surgery duration (156 vs. 212 min, p=0.001) for registrars MIDP. However, no differences were found in clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF) (16 vs. 7.5%, p=0.282), Clavien-Dindo severe complication ≥3 score (11 vs. 4%, p=0.396), or length of hospital stay (9 vs. 9 days; p=0.614) between the consultant and registrar cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

With all the limitations of a retrospective study with a small sample size, junior surgeons' involvement in MIDP for non-PDAC lesions resulted in higher conversion rate, blood loss and duration of surgery without statistically significant difference on clinical outcomes compared to a consultant.

Does staged surgical training for minimally invasive esophagectomy have an impact on short-term outcomes?

BACKGROUND

sophageal cancer has a low incidence, and the anatomy is difficult to understand during esophagectomy. This necessitates a precise and lengthy operation. Therefore, the establishment of a training system in esophageal surgery is of critical importance. In this study, we compared the short-term outcomes of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) performed by consultants versus trainees and explored the factors that impacted the thoracic operation time for each group.

METHODS

We have introduced standardized MIE surgical techniques to our trainees in 2016. Our procedure consists of a laparoscopic phase and a thoracoscopic phase and is systematically designed to be learned in a step-by-step manner in each phase. We retrospectively identified 308 patients who underwent MIE from April 2016 to April 2018. The patients were divided into those who underwent MIE by consultants and those who underwent MIE by trainees. The preoperative background factors, operation-related factors, and postoperative complications were compared between the two groups. We also assessed the association between a prolonged thoracic operation time and tumor-and patient-related factors in each of the consults and trainees.

RESULTS

Significantly more patients had stage ≥ III cancer in the consultant than trainee group. However, the postoperative complications were comparable, specifically pneumonia (11% vs. 18%), anastomotic leakage (11% vs. 13%), and mortality (0.6% vs. 1.3%). There was no significant difference in the lymph node yield (20 vs. 17) or R0 resection rate (94% vs. 91%) between the two groups. However, the trainees had a significantly longer thoracic operation time (143 ± 34 vs. 190 ± 28 min) and significantly greater blood loss (93 vs. 183 ml). Oncological factors were correlated with a prolonged thoracic operation time in the consultants, but not in the trainees.

CONCLUSIONS

Under standardized surgical management using a stepwise educational program, performance of MIE by trainees has no impact on short-term outcomes.

Trainee performance in radical gastrectomy and its effect on outcomes

Background

This study aimed to determine whether trainee involvement in D2 gastrectomies was associated with adverse outcomes.

Methods

Data from a prospectively created database of consecutive patients undergoing open D2 total (TG) or subtotal (STG) gastrectomy with curative intent between January 2009 and January 2014 were reviewed. Short‐ and long‐term clinical outcomes were compared in patients operated on by consultants and those treated by trainees under consultant supervision.

Results

A total of 272 D2 open gastrectomies were performed, 123 (45·2 per cent) by trainees. There was no significant difference between consultants and trainees in median duration of surgery (TG: 240 (range 102–505) versus 240 (170–375) min respectively, P = 0·452; STG: 225 (150–580) versus 212 (125–380) min, P = 0·192), number of resected nodes (TG: 30 (13–101) versus 30 (11–102), P = 0·681; STG: 26 (5–103) versus 25 (1–63), P = 0·171), length of hospital stay (TG: 15 (7–78) versus 15 (8–65) days, P = 0·981; STG: 10 (6–197) versus 14 (7–85) days, P = 0·242), overall morbidity (TG: 44 versus 49 per cent, P = 0·314; STG: 34 versus 25 per cent, P = 0·113) or mortality (TG: 4 versus 2 per cent; P = 0·293). No difference in predicted 5‐year overall survival was noted between the two cohorts (TG: 68 per cent for consultants versus 77 per cent for trainees, P = 0·254; STG: 70 versus 75 per cent respectively, P = 0·512). The trainee cohort had lower median blood loss for both TG (360 (range 90–1200) ml versus 600 (70–2350) ml for consultants; P = 0·042) and STG (235 (50–1000) versus 360 (50–3000) ml respectively; P = 0·053).

Conclusion

Clinical outcomes were not compromised by supervised trainee involvement in D2 open gastrectomy.

Completely Linear Stapled Versus Handsewn Cervical Esophagogastric Anastomosis After Esophagectomy

Very limited data is present which compares completely linear stapled to handsewn cervical esophagogastric anastomosis. Primary objective was to determine whether linearly stapled (LS) anastomosis has lower clinically apparent leaks, when compared to handsewn anastomosis (HS). Secondary objectives were morbidity, mortality, overall leak and stricture rates, and presence of a symptomatic cervical stricture. This is a comparative study of 77 patients who underwent LS (n = 29) and HS (n = 48) cervical anastomosis. Anastomotic leak was found to be 19.4% (15/77). In the HS group, 27.08% (13/48) and in the LS group, 6.89% (2/29), respectively, leaked (p = 0.03), relative risk (RR)-3.93 (95% CI 1.21-15.25). 32.5% (23/77) patients remained admitted for more than 14 days. 52.1% (25/48) patients in the HS group were discharged within 14 days of surgery; whereas; 93.1% (27/29) were discharged in LS group (p = 0.001), RR-6.95 (95% CI 2.13-25.94). Overall, 90-day mortality was 7.8% (6/77). In the HS group, 8.3% (4/48) patients died while in the LS group, 6.8% (2/29) patients died (p = 0.82), RR-1.21(95% CI 0.27-5.53). In the HS group, 6.25% (3/48) patients were diagnosed with stricture compared to 6.8% (2/29) patients in the LS group (p = 0.9), RR-0.91 (95% CI 0.19-4.44). Overall stricture rate was 6.4% (5/77). Cervical anastomosis done with linear staplers has less leak rates compared to handsewn anastomosis.