Benchmarking postoperative outcomes after open liver surgery for cirrhotic patients with hepatocellular carcinoma in a national cohort

A critical analysis of surgical outcomes indicators in hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery: From crude mortality to composite outcomes

BACKGROUND

Indicators of surgical outcomes are designed to objectively evaluate surgical performance, enabling comparisons among surgeons and institutions. In recent years, there has been a surge in complex indicators of perioperative short-term and long-term outcomes. The aim of this narrative review is to provide an overview and a critical analysis of surgical outcomes indicators, with a special emphasis on hepato-pancreato-biliary (HPB) surgery.

METHODS

A narrative review of outcome measures was conducted using a combined text and MeSH search strategy to identify relevant articles focused on perioperative outcomes, specifically within HPB surgery.

RESULTS

The literature search yielded 624 records, and 94 studies were included in the analysis. Included papers were classified depending on whether they assessed intraoperative or postoperative specific or composite outcomes, and whether they assessed purely clinical or combined clinical and socio-economic indicators. Specific indicators included in composite outcomes were categorized into three main domains: intraoperative metrics, postoperative outcomes, and oncological outcomes. While postoperative mortality, complications, hospital stay and readmission were the indicators most frequently included in composite outcomes, oncological outcomes were rarely considered.

CONCLUSIONS

The evolution of surgical outcomes has shifted from the simplistic assessment of crude mortality rates to complex composite outcomes. Whether the recent explosion of publications on these topics has a clinical impact in real life is questionable. Outcomes from the patient perspective, integrating social and financial indicators, are not yet integrated into most of these composite analytical tools but should not be underestimated.

6,126 hepatectomies in 2022: current trend of outcome in Italy

PURPOSE

Whether hospital volume affects outcome of patients undergoing hepatobiliary surgery, and whether the centralization of such procedures is justified remains to be investigated. The aim of this study was to analyze the outcome of liver surgery in Italy in relationship of hospital volume.

METHODS

This is a nationwide retrospective observational study conducted on data collected by the National Italian Registry "Piano Nazionale Esiti" (PNE) 2023 that included all liver procedures performed in 2022. Outcome measure were case volume and 30-day mortality. Hospitals were classified as very high-volume (H-Vol), intermediate-volume (I-Vol), low-volume (L-Vol) and very low-volume (VL-VoL). A review on centralization process and outcome measures was added.

RESULTS

6,126 liver resections for liver tumors were performed in 327 hospitals in 2022. The 30-day mortality was 2.2%. There were 14 H-Vol, 19 I-Vol, 31 L-Vol and 263 VL-Vol hospitals with 30-day mortality of 1.7%, 2.2%, 2.6% and 3.6% respectively (P < 0.001); 220 centers (83%) performed less than 10 resections, and 78 (29%) centers only 1 resection in 2022. By considering the geographical macro-areas, the median count of liver resection performed in northern Italy exceeded those in central and southern Italy (57% vs. 23% vs. 20%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

High-volume has been confirmed to be associated to better outcome after hepatobiliary surgical procedures. Further studies are required to detail the factors associated with mortality. The centralization process should be redesigned and oversight.

The impact of preoperative interview and prospective nursing on perioperative psychological stress and postoperative complications in patients undergoing TACE intervention for hepatocellular carcinoma

TACE has become one of the main methods for the treatment of liver cancer. The study aimed to investigate the effects of preoperative interview and prospective nursing in patients with hepatic carcinoma undergoing transcatheter chemoembolization (TACE). Eighty-six patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who underwent TACE intervention treatment at our hospital between 2020 and 2023 were selected and randomly assigned to 2 groups using computerized randomization. The control group (n = 43) received routine nursing care, while the study group (n = 43) received preoperative interviews in combination with prospective nursing during the procedure. The patients' heart rate, mean arterial pressure, and blood pressure variations were recorded, along with their mood changes after intervention. The postoperative pain and satisfaction levels were compared between the 2 groups of patients, and the incidence of postoperative complications was observed. The heart rate, systolic blood pressure, and diastolic blood pressure of the 2 groups of patients were compared 1 day before the operation (P > .05). Compared to 1 day before the operation, there was no significant change for the study group at 10 minutes after entering the room. However, the control group showed an increase. Both groups showed an increase in heart rate, systolic blood pressure, and diastolic blood pressure after the operation, with the study group having lower values than the control group (P < .05). The levels of tension, fatigue, anxiety, energy, anger, depression, self-esteem, and POMS index were compared between the 2 groups before intervention (P > .05). After intervention, there were significant differences between the 2 groups(P < .05). Immediately after the operation, the NRS scores of the 2 groups of patients were compared (P > .05). Compared to the control group, the study group showed a decrease in NRS scores at 12, 24, and 48 hours after the operation (P < .05). The nursing satisfaction rate of the study group patients was 97.67% (42/43), which was higher than the nursing satisfaction rate of the control group of 76.74% (33/43) (P < .05). Compared to routine nursing, preoperative visits and prospective nursing interventions can effectively alleviate patients' psychological stress reactions, relieve pain, reduce the incidence of complications, and improve patients' satisfaction with nursing care.

Benchmarking outcomes for distal pancreatectomy: critical evaluation of four multicenter studies

BACKGROUND

Benchmarking is a validated tool for outcome assessment and international comparison of best achievable surgical outcomes. The methodology is increasingly applied in pancreatic surgery and the aim of the review was to critically compare available benchmark studies evaluating distal pancreatectomy (DP).

METHODS

A literature search of English articles reporting on benchmarking DP was conducted of the electronic databases MEDLINE and Web of Science (until April 2023). Studies on open (ODP), laparoscopic (LDP), and robotic DP (RDP) were included.

RESULTS

Four retrospective multicenter studies were included. Studies reported on outcomes of minimally invasive DP only (n = 2), ODP and LDP (n = 1), and RDP only (n = 1). Either the Achievable Benchmark of Care™ method or the 75th percentile from the median was selected to define benchmark cutoffs. Robust and reproducible benchmark values were provided by the four studies for intra- and postoperative short-term outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Benchmarking DP is a valuable tool for obtaining internationally accepted reference outcomes for open and minimally invasive DP approaches with only minor variances in four international cohorts. Benchmark cutoffs allow for outcome comparisons between institutions, surgeons, and to monitor the introduction of novel minimally invasive DP techniques.

Benchmarking: a novel measuring tool for outcome comparisons in surgery

INTRODUCTION

Benchmarking, a novel measuring tool for outcome comparisons, is a recent concept in surgery. The objectives of this review are to examine the concept, definition, and evolution of benchmarking and its application in surgery.

METHODS

The literature about benchmarking was reviewed through an ever-narrowing search strategy, commencing from the concept, definition, and evolution of benchmarking to the application of benchmarking and experiences of benchmarking in surgery. PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Science Direct databases were searched until 20 September 2022, in the English language according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines.

RESULTS

In the first phase of the literature search, the development of benchmarking was identified. The definitions of benchmarking evolved from a surveying term to a novel quality-improvement tool to assess the best achievable results in surgery. In the second phase, a total of 23 studies were identified about benchmarking in surgery, including esophagectomy, hepatic surgery, pancreatic surgery, rectum resection, and bariatric surgery. All studies were multicenter analyses from national, international, or global expert centers. Most studies (87.0%) adopted the definition that benchmark was the 75th percentile of the median values of centers. Performance metrics to define benchmarks were clinically relevant intraoperative and postoperative outcome indicators.

CONCLUSION

Benchmarking in surgery is a novel quality-improvement tool to define and measure the best achievable results, establishing a meaningful reference to evaluate surgical performance.

Benchmarking of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy: European multicentre study

Background

Benchmarking is the process to used assess the best achievable results and compare outcomes with that standard. This study aimed to assess best achievable outcomes in minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy (MIDPS).

Methods

This retrospective study included consecutive patients undergoing MIDPS for any indication, between 2003 and 2019, in 31 European centres. Benchmarks of the main clinical outcomes were calculated according to the Achievable Benchmark of Care (ABC™) method. After identifying independent risk factors for severe morbidity and conversion, risk-adjusted ABCs were calculated for each subgroup of patients at risk.

Results

A total of 1595 patients were included. The ABC was 2.5 per cent for conversion and 8.4 per cent for severe morbidity. ABC values were 160 min for duration of operation time, 8.3 per cent for POPF, 1.8 per cent for reoperation, and 0 per cent for mortality. Multivariable analysis showed that conversion was associated with male sex (OR 1.48), BMI exceeding 30 kg/m2 (OR 2.42), multivisceral resection (OR 3.04), and laparoscopy (OR 2.24). Increased risk of severe morbidity was associated with ASA fitness grade above II (OR 1.60), multivisceral resection (OR 1.88), and robotic approach (OR 1.87).

Conclusion

The benchmark values obtained using the ABC method represent optimal outcomes from best achievable care, including low complication rates and zero mortality. These benchmarks should be used to set standards to improve patient outcomes.