Appraisal of surgical outcomes and oncological efficiency of intraoperative adverse events in robotic radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

Surgical quality control is a crucial determinant of evaluating the tumor efficacy.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the ClassIntra grade for quality control and oncological outcomes of robotic radical surgery for gastric cancer (GC).

METHODS

Data of patients undergoing robotic radical surgery for GC at a high-volume center were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were categorized into two groups, the intraoperative adverse event (iAE) group and the non-iAE group, based on the occurrence of intraoperative adverse events. The iAEs were further classified into five sublevels (ranging from I to V according to severity) based on the ClassIntra grade. Surgical performance was assessed using the Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skill (OSATS) and the General Error Reporting Tool.

RESULTS

This study included 366 patients (iAE group: n = 72 [19.7%] and non-iAE group: n = 294 [80.3%]). The proportion of ClassIntra grade II patients was the highest in the iAE group (54.2%). In total and distal gastrectomies, iAEs occurred most frequently in the suprapancreatic area (50.0% and 54.8%, respectively). In total gastrectomy, grade IV iAEs were most common during lymph node dissection in the splenic hilum area (once for bleeding [grade IV] and once for injury [grade IV]). The overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival of the non-iAE group were significantly better than those of the iAE group (Log rank P < 0.001). Uni- and multi-variate analyses showed that iAEs were key prognostic indicators, independent of tumor stage and adjuvant chemotherapy (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

iAEs in patients who underwent robotic radical gastrectomy significantly correlated with the occurrence of postoperative complications and a poor long-term prognosis. Therefore, utilization and inclusion of ClassIntra grading as a crucial surgical quality control and prognostic indicator in the routine surgical quality evaluation system are recommended.

A Narrative Review on Intraoperative Adverse Events: Risks, Prevention, and Mitigation

INTRODUCTION

Adverse events from surgical interventions are common. They can occur at various stages of surgical care, and they carry a heavy burden on the different parties involved. While extensive research and efforts have been made to better understand the etiologies of postoperative complications, more research on intraoperative adverse events (iAEs) remains to be done.

METHODS

In this article, we reviewed the literature looking at iAEs to discuss their risk factors, their implications on surgical care, and the current efforts to mitigate and manage them.

RESULTS

Risk factors for iAEs are diverse and are dictated by patient-related risk factors, the nature and complexity of the procedures, the surgeon's experience, and the work environment of the operating room. The implications of iAEs vary according to their severity and include increased rates of 30-day postoperative morbidity and mortality, increased length of hospital stay and readmission, increased care cost, and a second victim emotional toll on the operating surgeon.

CONCLUSIONS

While transparent reporting of iAEs remains a challenge, many efforts are using new measures not only to report iAEs but also to provide better surveillance, prevention, and mitigation strategies to reduce their overall adverse impact.

Intraoperative complications during standard and complex endovascular aortic repair

This study aimed to provide a comprehensive overview of the most common intraoperative adverse events that occur during standard endovascular repair and fenestrated-branched endovascular repair to treat abdominal aortic aneurysms, thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms, and aortic arch aneurysms. Despite advancements in endovascular techniques, sophisticated imaging and improved graft designs, intraoperative difficulties still occur, even in highly standardized procedures and high-volume centers. This study emphasized that with the increased adoption and complexity of endovascular aortic procedures, strategies to minimize intraoperative adverse events should be protocolized and standardized. There is a need for robust evidence on this topic, which could potentially optimize treatment outcomes and durability of the available techniques.

Development and Validation of a Nomogram Predicting Intraoperative Adverse Events During Robot-assisted Partial Nephrectomy

BACKGROUND

Ability to predict the risk of intraoperative adverse events (IOAEs) for patients undergoing partial nephrectomy (PN) can be of great clinical significance.

OBJECTIVE

To develop and internally validate a preoperative nomogram predicting IOAEs for robot-assisted PN (RAPN).

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

In this observational study, data for demographic, preoperative, and postoperative variables for patients who underwent RAPN were extracted from the Vattikuti Collective Quality Initiative (VCQI) database.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

IOAEs were defined as the occurrence of intraoperative surgical complications, blood transfusion, or conversion to open surgery/radical nephrectomy. Backward stepwise logistic regression analysis was used to identify predictors of IOAEs. The nomogram was validated using bootstrapping, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), and the goodness of fit. Decision curve analysis (DCA) was used to determine the clinical utility of the model.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Among the 2114 patients in the study cohort, IOAEs were noted in 158 (7.5%). Multivariable analysis identified five variables as independent predictors of IOAEs: RENAL nephrometry score (odds ratio [OR] 1.13, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02-1.25); clinical tumor size (OR 1.01, 95% CI 1.001-1.024); PN indication as absolute versus elective (OR 3.9, 95% CI 2.6-5.7) and relative versus elective (OR 4.2, 95% CI 2.2-8); Charlson comorbidity index (OR 1.17, 95% CI 1.05-1.30); and multifocal tumors (OR 8.8, 95% CI 5.4-14.1). A nomogram was developed using these five variables. The model was internally valid on bootstrapping and goodness of fit. The AUC estimated was 0.76 (95% CI 0.72-0.80). DCA revealed that the model was clinically useful at threshold probabilities >5%. Limitations include the lack of external validation and selection bias.

CONCLUSIONS

We developed and internally validated a nomogram predicting IOAEs during RAPN.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We developed a preoperative model than can predict complications that might occur during robotic surgery for partial removal of a kidney. Tests showed that our model is fairly accurate and it could be useful in identifying patients with kidney cancer for whom this type of surgery is suitable.

Incidence, predictive factors, and outcomes of intraprocedure adverse events during fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair of complex abdominal and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the incidence of intraoperative adverse events (IAEs) and their impact on outcomes after fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (FB-EVAR) of complex abdominal aortic aneurysms and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm (TAAAs).

METHODS

We reviewed the clinical and imaging data of 600 consecutive patients (445 males; mean age, 75 ± 8 years) who underwent FB-EVAR between 2007 and 2019 in a single institution. IAE was defined as any intraoperative complication or technical problem requiring additional and unplanned procedures, and was classified as access-related, target artery (TA)-related, or graft-related. End points included rates of IAEs, 30-day or in-hospital mortality, major adverse events, patient survival, freedom from secondary intervention, and TA instability.

RESULTS

A total of 122 IAEs were identified in 105 patients (18%). IAEs were TA-related in 55 patients (9%), access-related in 46 patients (8%), and graft-related in seven patients (1%). Female sex was more frequent among patients with IAEs (44% vs 22%; P < .001). Patients with IAEs had smaller renal artery diameter (-0.4 mm, 5.4 ± 0.8 mm vs 5.8 ± 0.9 mm; P < .001), and were treated more often for TAAAs (72% vs 54%; P < .03). Technical success was achieved in 96.5% of patients and was lower for patients with IAEs (82% vs 99%; P < .001). Major adverse events were significantly more frequent among patients who had IAEs (odds ratio [OR], 1.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.21-3.25), most due to acute kidney injury (27% vs 11%; P < .001) including new-onset dialysis (5% vs 1%; P = .01). On multivariate logistic regression model, female sex (OR, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.5-4.0), TA stenosis >50% (OR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.3-3.3), and Crawford Extent II TAAA (OR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.1-3.3) were predictive of IAEs, whereas preloaded design (OR, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.4-0.9) and TA diameter (+1 mm; OR, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.4-0.9) were protective of IAEs. IAEs negatively affected secondary intervention (hazard ratio [HR], 1.6; 95% CI, 1.1-2.3) and TA instability (HR, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.2-5.4); however, IAEs did not affect patient survival (HR, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.7-1.4).

CONCLUSIONS

IAEs are common, occurring in nearly one of five patients treated with FB-EVAR for complex aortic aneurysms, and have a negative impact on clinical outcomes. IAEs were associated with female sex, TA diameter, and more extensive aortic disease.

Quality Assessment of Intraoperative Adverse Event Reporting During 29 227 Robotic Partial Nephrectomies: A Systematic Review and Cumulative Analysis

The definition of intraoperative adverse events (IAEs) still lacks standardization, hampering the assessment of surgical performance in this regard. Over the years, efforts to address this issue have been carried out to improve the reporting of outcomes. In 2019, the European Association of Urology (EAU) proposed a standardized reporting tool for IAEs in urology. The objective of the present study is to distill systematically published data on IAEs in patients undergoing robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN) for renal masses to answer three key questions (KQs). (KQ1) Which system is used to report the IAEs? (KQ2) What is the frequency of IAEs? (KQ3) What types of IAEs are reported? A comprehensive systematic review of all English-language publications on RPN was carried out. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to evaluate PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases (from January 1, 2000 to January 1, 2019). Quality of reporting and grading complications were assessed according to the EAU recommendations. Globally, 59 (35.3%) and 108 (64.7%) studies reported zero and one or more IAEs, respectively. Overall, 761 (2.6%) patients reported at least one IAE. Intraoperative bleeding is reported as the most common IAE (58%). Our analysis showed no improvement in reporting and grading of IAEs over time. PATIENT SUMMARY: Up to now, an agreement regarding the definition and reporting of intraoperative adverse events (IAEs) in the literature has not been achieved. The aim of this study is to evaluate the reporting of IAEs in patients undergoing robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN) after a systematic review of the literature. More rigorous reporting of IAEs during RPN is needed to measure their impact on patients' perioperative care.

Unexpected Intraoperative Findings, Situations, and Complications in Bariatric Surgery

BACKGROUND

Bariatric surgery is considered a safe therapy to treat obesity. Postoperative complications are well known; however, there is a lack of data describing intraoperative complications and/or unexpected findings, and if there is further impact on outcomes.

METHODS

Retrospective study with patients operated between 2013 and 2016 at a single institution. All operative information was collected prospectively and aimed to analyze the incidence and causes of unexpected intraoperative findings, complications, change in surgical plan, extra surgeries, and procedure interruption in patients submitted to bariatric surgery. Secondarily, a morbidity analysis was performed, correlating intraoperative complications with postoperative complications and length of stay.

RESULTS

Four-hundred and five patients were included. Female sex comprised 82% of cases, and a median age of 38 years old was observed; almost 90% were gastric bypass. In 29.3% of cases, there were intraoperative findings, mainly adhesions, abdominal wall hernias, positive methylene blue test, hiatal hernias, and gastrointestinal stromal tumors. Associated surgeries were performed in 8.6% cases, and intraoperative adverse events reported in 7.1%, where organ injury and anastomosis problems were the most frequent. A change in the operative plan was done in 0.9% and surgery interruption in 1.2% of the cases. Early complications were observed in 6.6%. There was no correlation between intraoperative complications and length of stay or early complications.

CONCLUSION

Unexpected intraoperative findings/complications are common in bariatric surgery, but without increasing morbidity or length of stay. Surgery suspension, change in the planned technique, or adding extra (non-bariatric) procedures may occur.

Operating at night does not increase the risk of intraoperative adverse events

BACKGROUND

We sought to investigate the association between nighttime (NT) operating and the occurrence of intraoperative adverse events (iAEs).

STUDY DESIGN

Our 2007-2012 institutional ACS-NSQIP and administrative databases were screened for iAEs using the ICD-9-CM-based Patient Safety Indicator "accidental puncture or laceration". Procedures were defined as AM (06.00-14.00 h), PM (14.00-22.00 h), or NT (22.00-06.00 h). Univariate and multivariable analyses were performed to investigate the association between PM and NT operating and the occurrence of iAEs.

RESULTS

9136 surgical procedures were included: 7445 AM, 1303 PM, 388 NT. iAEs occurred in 183 procedures. NT patients were younger and less comorbid, but sicker, and with less complex surgeries. There was no correlation between PM or NT operations and iAEs (multivariable analysis [reference: AM operations]: OR = 0.66 [95% CI = 0.40-1.12], P = 0.123; OR = 1.22 [95% CI = 0.51-2.93], P = 0.659, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Operating at night does increase the risk of iAEs.

Detection and potential consequences of intraoperative adverse events: A pilot study in the veterans health administration

Surgical quality improvement efforts have focused on tracking and reducing postoperative mortality and morbidity. However, the prevalence of intraoperative adverse events (IAEs) and their association with postoperative surgical outcomes has been poorly studied. In this study, we detected IAEs using both retrospective chart review and prospective provider reporting. We then examined the association of IAEs with postoperative outcomes. The overall IAE detection rate per case was 0.7 and 0.07 (P < 0.0001) based on chart review and provider reporting, respectively. Types of IAEs varied between detection methods. Provider-reported IAEs were more serious, i.e., had a stronger association with 30-day postoperative complications than chart-identified IAEs (risk-adjusted odds ratios were 1.52 vs 1.02, respectively, both p < 0.0001). Our findings suggest that IAEs can be detected using either retrospective chart review or prospective provider reporting. However, provider reporting appears more likely to detect serious (albeit infrequent) IAEs compared to chart review.

The impact of major intraoperative adverse events on hospital readmissions

BACKGROUND

Hospital-wide readmission rates recently became a recognized benchmarking quality metric. We sought to study the independent impact of major intraoperative adverse events (iAEs) on 30-day readmission in abdominal surgery.

METHODS

The 2007 to 2012 institutional American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program and administrative databases for abdominal operations were matched then screened for iAEs using the International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification-based Patient Safety Indicator "Accidental Puncture/Laceration". Flagged charts were reviewed to confirm the presence of iAEs. Major iAEs were defined as class 3 or above, as per our recently validated iAE Classification System. The inpatient database was queried for readmission within 30 days from discharge. Univariate and multivariable models were constructed to analyze the independent impact of major iAEs on readmission, controlling for demographics, comorbidities, American Society of Anesthesiology class, and procedure type/approach/complexity (using relative value units as proxy). Reasons for readmission were investigated using the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification-based Clinical Classification Software.

RESULTS

Of 9,274 surgical procedures; 921 resulted in readmission (9.9%), 183 had confirmed iAEs, 73 of which were major iAEs. Procedures with major iAEs had a higher readmission rate compared with procedures with no iAEs [24.7% vs 9.8%, P < .001]. In multivariable analyses, major iAEs were independently associated with a 2-fold increase in readmission rates [OR = 2.17 (95% CI = 1.22 to 3.86); P = .008]; 67% of readmissions after major iAEs were caused by "complications of surgical procedures or medical care" as defined by Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

CONCLUSIONS

Major iAEs are independently associated with increased rates of 30-day readmission. Preventing iAEs or mitigating their effects can serve as a quality improvement target to decrease surgical readmissions.