Oliver Anderson

Transthoracic versus transhiatal esophagectomy for the treatment of esophagogastric cancer: a meta-analysis.

Objective:To study the differences in short and long-term outcomes of transthoracic and transhiatal esophagectomy for cancer. Background:Studies have compared transthoracic with transhiatal esophagectomy with varying results. Previous systematic reviews (1999, 2001) do not include the latest randomized controlled trials. Methods:Systematic review of English-language studies comparing transthoracic with transhiatal esophagectomy up to January 31, 2010. Meta-analysis was used to summate the study outcomes. Methodological and surgical quality of included studies was assessed. Results:Fifty-two studies, comprising 5905 patients (3389 transthoracic and 2516 transhiatal) were included in the analysis. No study met all minimum surgical quality standards. Transthoracic operations took longer and were associated with a significantly longer length of stay. There was no difference in blood loss. The transthoracic group had significantly more respiratory complications, wound infections, and early postoperative mortality, whereas anastomotic leak, anastomotic stricture, and recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy rate was significantly higher in the transhiatal group. Lymph node retrieval was reported in 4 studies and was significantly greater in the transthoracic group by on average 8 lymph nodes. Analysis of 5-year survival showed no significant difference between the groups and was subject to significant heterogeneity. Conclusions:This meta-analysis of studies comparing transthoracic with transhiatal esophagectomy for cancer demonstrates no difference in 5-year survival, however lymphadenectomy and reported surgical quality was suboptimal in both groups and the transthoracic group had significantly more advanced cancer. The finding of equivalent survival should therefore be viewed with caution.

Hospital volume and survival in oesophagectomy and gastrectomy for cancer.

BACKGROUND High volume upper gastrointestinal cancer hospitals demonstrate improved postoperative mortality rates, but the impact on survival is unclear. This population-based cohort study explores the effect of hospital volume on survival following upper gastrointestinal cancer surgery. PATIENTS AND METHODS This study used a population-based cohort of 3866 patients who underwent surgery for oesophageal or gastric cancer between 1998 and 2008 with follow-up until December 2008. RESULTS Hospital volume ranged from 1 to 68 cases/year. Overall, 5-year survival was 27%. Increasing age and advanced stage of disease were independently correlated with shorter survival. High hospital volume was significantly and independently correlated with improved 30-day mortality postoperatively (P<0.001), but not with survival beyond 30 days. CONCLUSION The correlation between hospital volume and improved 30-day mortality following oesophageal and gastric cancer surgery supports the centralisation of upper gastrointestinal cancer surgery services. The low survival in both high and low volume hospitals beyond 30 days highlights the need for increasing earlier diagnosis and optimising approaches to radical treatment.

Surgical adverse events: a systematic review

BACKGROUND The aim of this systematic review is to quantify potentially preventable patient harm from the frequency, severity, and preventability of the consequences and causes of surgical adverse events to help target patient safety improvement efforts. DATA SOURCES Two authors independently reviewed articles retrieved from systematic searches of the Cochrane library, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature databases for inclusion and exclusion criteria, methodology, and end points. All retrospective record review studies of adverse events were included. The primary end point was the frequency of general surgery adverse events. The secondary end points were the severity and preventability of consequences and causes. CONCLUSIONS Fourteen record review studies incorporating 16,424 surgical patients were included. Adverse events occurred in 14.4% of patients (interquartile range [IQR], 12.5% to 20.1%), and potentially preventable adverse events occurred in 5.2% (IQR, 4.2% to 7.0%). The consequences of 3.6% of adverse events (IQR, 3.1% to 4.4%) were fatal, those of 10.4% (IQR, 8.5% to 12.3%) were severe, those of 34.2% (IQR, 29.2% to 39.2%) were moderate, and those of 52.5% (IQR, 49.8% to 55.3%) were minor. Errors in nonoperative management caused more frequent adverse events than errors in surgical technique.

Surgeon Volume and Cancer Esophagectomy, Gastrectomy, and Pancreatectomy: A Population-based Study in England.

Objective:The aim of the study was to assess whether there is a proficiency curve-like relationship between surgeon volume and operative mortality and determine the minimum surgeon volume for optimum operative mortality. Background:The inverse relationship between hospital volume and operative mortality is well-established for esophageal, gastric, and pancreatic cancer. The recommended minimum surgeon volumes are however uncertain. Methods:We retrieved data on esophagectomies, gastrectomies, and pancreatectomies for cancer from the NHS Hospital Episodes Statistics database from April 2000 to March 2010. We defined mortality as in-hospital death within 30 days of surgery. We determined whether there was a proficiency curve relationship by inspecting surgeon volume-mortality graphs after adjusting for patient age, sex, socioeconomic, and comorbidity indices. We then statistically determined the minimum surgeon volume that produced a mortality rate insignificantly different from the optimum of the curve. Results:Sixteen thousand five hundred seventy-two esophagectomies, 12,622 gastrectomies, and 9116 pancreatectomies were examined. Surgeon volume ranged from 2 to 29 esophagectomies, from 1 to 14 gastrectomies, and from 2 to 31 pancreatectomies per surgeon per year. We demonstrated a proficiency relationship between surgeon volume and mortality in esophageal, gastric, and pancreatic cancer surgery. Each additional case of esophagectomy, gastrectomy, and pancreatectomy would reduce 30-day mortality odds by 3.4%, 7.2%, and 4.1%, respectively. However, as surgeon volume increased, mortality rate continued to improve. Therefore, we were unable to recommend minimum surgeon volume. Conclusions:Mortality after resections for esophageal, gastric, and pancreatic cancer falls as surgeon volume rises up to 30 cases. Within this range, we did not demonstrate any statistical threshold that could be recommended as a minimum volume target.

A systematic proactive risk assessment of hazards in surgical wards: a quantitative study.

Objective:To identify and prioritize hazards in surgical wards and recommend interventions. Background:Retrospective and prospective studies report the frequency and severity of surgical adverse events, but not in sufficient detail to allow interventions to be recommended in surgical wards. Methods:Seventy hours of observations were used to record all activities occurring in surgical wards, and from these activities health care processes were derived. Fifty-nine patients and staff quantified the hazard associated with each health care process through a risk assessment survey. Modified health care failure mode and effects analysis was applied to the most hazardous of these processes to quantify the hazard of their associated failures. Cause analysis was applied to the most hazardous failures within analyzed processes. Interventions addressing the prioritized failures were recommended. Results:Surgical ward observations identified 81 activities. The risk assessment survey was used to quantify the hazard associated with 10 health care processes derived from these activities. The 5 most hazardous processes were prioritized for modified health care failure mode and effects analysis including hand hygiene, isolation of infection, vital signs, medication delivery, and hand off. Of 190 failures within these processes, 50 (26%) were considered hazardous and did not have effective control measures in place. The causes of these failures allowed interventions to be recommended. Conclusions:Proactive risk assessments were used to systematically identify and prioritize hazards in surgical wards and allowed interventions to be recommended. These are practical tools that can determine where patient safety efforts should be targeted in clinical health care environments.

Escalation of care in surgery: a systematic risk assessment to prevent avoidable harm in hospitalized patients.

OBJECTIVE To systematically risk assess and analyze the escalation of care process in surgery so as to identify problems and provide recommendations for intervention. BACKGROUND The ability to escalate care appropriately when managing deteriorating patients is a hallmark of surgical competence and safe postoperative care. Healthcare-Failure-Mode-Effects-Analysis (HFMEA) is a methodology adapted from safety-critical industries, which allows for hazardous process failures to be prospectively identified and solutions to be recommended. METHODS Forty-two hours of ethnographic observations on surgical wards in 3 London hospitals (phase 1) formed the basis of an escalation process diagram. A risk-assessment survey identified failures associated with process steps and attributed hazard scores (phase 2). Patient safety and clinical risk experts validated hazard scores through a group consensus meeting (phase 3). Hazardous failures were taken forward to multidisciplinary HFMEA where cause analysis was applied and interventions were recommended (phase 4). RESULTS Observations identified 33 steps in the escalation process. The risk-assessment survey (30 surgical staff members, 100% response) and expert consensus group identified 18 hazardous failures associated with these steps. The HFMEA team identified 3 adequately controlled failures; therefore, 15 were subjected to cause analysis. Outdated communication technology, understaffing, and hierarchical barriers were identified as root causes of failure. Participants recommended interventions based on these findings including defined escalation protocols, human factors education, enhanced communication technology, and improved clinical supervision. CONCLUSIONS Failures in the escalation process amenable to intervention were systematically identified. This mapping of the escalation process will allow tailored interventions to enhance surgical training and patient safety.

Tailgut cysts: report of two cases

AimAn illustration of the diagnosis and management of tailgut cysts.Materials and methodsTwo cases of tailgut cyst and a review of the literature.ResultsA female patient presented with acute urinary retention with a retrorectal mass felt during rectal examination and confirmed on ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging underwent surgical resection and histology confirmed a chronically inflamed mucoid fluid-filled cyst partly lined by non-keratinised squamous epithelium. A male patient with ureteric obstruction and a prerectal cyst found on ultrasound scan underwent computed tomography with biopsies, but without reaching a conclusive diagnosis. Surgical resection was carried out and histology showed a chronically inflamed mucoid fluid-filled cyst partly lined with columnar epithelium.DiscussionTailgut cysts are a rare developmental abnormality arising from remnants of the embryological postanal gut. Usually presenting incidentally or with pressure symptoms in middle-aged females, tailgut cysts are often initially mistaken for other clinical entities. Magnetic resonance imaging helps to differentiate tailgut cysts from other retrorectal lesions and developmental cysts. Histologically, the cyst wall demonstrates a wide variety of epithelial types and has a malignant potential. Malignancy is difficult to rule out with imaging or biopsy.ConclusionsMagnetic resonance imaging is the favoured imaging modality and surgical resection is recommended to relieve pressure symptoms, provide a definitive diagnosis and rule out malignancy.

Short- and long-term outcome of laparostomy following intra-abdominal sepsis.

Aim  This study reports the short‐ and long‐term outcomes of laparostomy for intra‐abdominal sepsis.

Development of a Surgical Educational Research Program—Fundamental Principles and Challenges

BACKGROUND Surgical educational research is the scientific investigation of any aspect of surgical learning, teaching, training, and assessment. The research into development and validation of educational tools is vital to optimize patient care. This can be accomplished by establishing high quality educational research programs within academic surgical departments. This article aims to identify the components involved in educational research and describes the challenges as well as solutions to establishing a high quality surgical educational research program. METHODS A variety of sources including journal articles, books, and online literature were reviewed in order to determine the pathways involved in conducting educational research and establishing a research program. RESULTS It is vital to ensure that educational research is acceptable, innovative, robust in design, funded correctly, and disseminated successfully. Challenges faced by the current surgical research programs include structural organization, academic support, credibility, time, funding, relevance, and growth. The solutions to these challenges have been discussed. CONCLUSIONS To ensure research in surgical education is of high quality and yields credible results, strong leadership in the organization of an educational research program is necessary.

Taking ergonomics to the bedside--a multi-disciplinary approach to designing safer healthcare.

A multi-disciplinary approach to designing safer healthcare was utilised to investigate risks in the bed-space in elective surgical wards. The Designing Out Medical Error (DOME) project brought together clinicians, designers, psychologists, human factors and business expertise to develop solutions for the highest risk healthcare processes. System mapping and risk assessment techniques identified nearly 200 potential failure modes in hand hygiene, isolation of infection, vital signs monitoring, medication delivery and handover of information. Solutions addressed issues such as the design of equipment, reminders, monitoring, feedback and standardisation. Some of the solutions, such as the CareCentre™, which brings many of the processes and equipment together into one easy to access workstation at the foot of the bed, have been taken forward to clinical trials and manufacture. The project showed the value of the multi-disciplinary and formal human factors approaches to healthcare design for patient safety. In particular, it demonstrates the application of human factors to a complete design cycle and provides a case study for the activities required to reach a safe, marketable product.