Advertisement

Short and Long-term Outcomes Among High-Volume vs Low-Volume Esophagectomy Surgeons at a High-Volume Center

Published:September 20, 2021DOI:https://doi.org/10.1053/j.semtcvs.2021.09.007
      To determine associations between surgeon volume and esophagectomy outcomes at a high-volume institution. All esophagectomies for esophageal cancer at our institution from August 2005 to August 2019 were reviewed. Cases were divided by surgeon into low, <7 cases/year, vs high volume, ≥7 cases/year, based on Leapfrog Group recommendations. Surgeons remained ‘high-volume’ after one year of ≥7 cases. Demographics, comorbidities, course of care, and long-term outcomes were compared. In total, 1029 cases were evaluated; 120 performed by low-volume surgeons vs 909 by high-volume surgeons. Never-smokers, atrial fibrillation, and clinical Stage IVa patients were associated with high-volume surgeons. Other demographics were similar. Low-volume surgeons did more open cases, 45.8% vs 14.5%, P < 0.01. Low-volume surgeons had more complications than high-volume surgeons (71.7% vs 57.6%, P < 0.01), specifically Grade II and III (59.2% vs 46.8%, P = 0.01, and 44.2% vs 27.0%, P <0.01). No differences were seen in anastomotic leak rate, 90-day mortality, recurrences, 5-year overall survival (46.7% low-volume vs 49.3% high-volume, P = 0.64), or 5-year disease-free survival (35.7% low-volume vs 42.2% high-volume, P = 0.27). In multivariable logistic regression for Grade III or higher complications, high-volume surgeons had an odds ratio of 0.56 (95% confidence interval 0.36–0.87) for complications. Our study found higher rates of open esophagectomies and complications in low-volume esophagectomy surgeons compared to high-volume surgeons at the same, high-volume institution. However, low-volume surgeons were not associated with worse survival outcomes compared to high-volume surgeons. Low-volume esophagectomy surgeons may benefit from mentoring and support to improve perioperative outcomes; these efforts are underway at our institution.

      Graphical Abstract

      Keywords

      Abbreviations:

      OS (overall survival), DFS (disease-free survival), LRFS (locoregional-recurrence-free survival), BMI (body mass index), CAD (coronary artery disease), COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease), SCC (squamous cell carcinoma), HR (hazard ratio), CI (confidence interval)
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Seminars in Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Luft H.S.
        • Bunker J.P.
        • Enthoven A.C.
        Should operations be regionalized? The empirical relation between surgical volume and mortality.
        N Engl J Med. 1979; 301: 1364-1369https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM197912203012503
        • Birkmyre J.D.
        • Siewers A.E.
        • Finlayson E.V.A.
        • et al.
        Hospital volume and surgical mortality in the united states.
        N Engl J Med. 2002; 346: 1128-1137https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsa012337
        • Birkmyre J.D.
        • Stukel T.A.
        • Siewers A.S.
        • et al.
        Surgeon volume and operative mortality in the United States.
        N Engl J Med. 2003; 349: 2117-2127https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsa035205
        • Brusselaers N.
        • Mattsson F.
        • Lagergren J.
        Hospital and surgeon volume in relation to long-term survival after oesophagectomy: Systematic review and meta-analysis.
        Gut. 2014; 63: 1393-1400
        • Ely S.
        • Alabaster A.
        • Ashiku S.K.
        • Patel A.
        • Velotta J.B.
        Regionalization of thoracic surgery improves short-term cancer esophagectomy outcomes.
        J Thorac Dis. 2019; 11 (PMID:31285879, PMCID: PMC6588736): 1867-1878https://doi.org/10.21037/jtd.2019.05.30
        • Gottlieb-Vedi E.
        • Mackenzie H.
        • van Workum F.
        • Rosman C.
        • Lagergren P.
        • Markar S.
        • Lagergren J.
        Surgeon volume and surgeon age in relation to proficiency gain curves for prognosis following surgery for esophageal cancer.
        Ann Surg Oncol. 2019; 26 (Epub 2018 Oct 15. PMID:30324469, PMCID: PMC6341157): 497-505https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-018-6869-8
      1. Leapfrog Group. Surgical Volume. Leapfrog Group website. Accessed August 4, 2020. https://www.leapfroggroup.org/ratings-reports/surgical-volume.

        • Amin M.B.
        • Edge S.B.
        • Greene F.L.
        • et al.
        AJCC Cancer Staging Manual.
        8th ed. Springer, New York2017
        • Dindo D.
        • Demartines N.
        • Clavien P.A.
        Classification of surgical complications: Anew proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey.
        Ann Surg. 2004; 240: 205-213
        • Gottlieb-Vedi E.
        • Mackenzie H.
        • van Workum F.
        • Rosman C.
        • Lagergren P.
        • Markar S.
        • Lagergren J.
        Surgeon volume and surgeon age in relation to proficiency gain curves for prognosis following surgery for esophageal cancer.
        Ann Surg Oncol. 2019; 26 (Epub 2018 Oct 15. PMID:30324469PMCID: PMC6341157): 497-505https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-018-6869-8
        • Clark J.M.
        • Cooke D.T.
        • Hashimi H.
        • Chin D.
        • Utter G.H.
        • Brown L.M.
        • Nuño M.
        Do the 2018 leapfrog group minimal hospital and surgeon volume thresholds for esophagectomy favor specific patient demographics?.
        Ann Surg. 2019; (Epub ahead of printPMID:31425294)https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000003553
        • Umana-Pizano J.B.
        • Nissen A.P.
        • Sandhu H.K.
        • Miller C.C.
        • Loghin A.
        • Safi H.J.
        • Eisenberg S.B.
        • Estrera A.L.
        • Nguyen T.C.
        Acute type a dissection repair by high-volume vs low-volume surgeons at a high-volume aortic center.
        Ann Thorac Surg. 2019; 108 (Epub 2019 May 31. PMID:31158351): 1330-1336https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2019.04.040
        • Tapias L.F.
        • Mathisen D.J.
        • Wright C.D.
        • Wain J.C.
        • Gaissert H.A.
        • Muniappan A.
        • Lanuti M.
        • Donahue D.M.
        • Morse C.R.
        Outcomes with open and minimally invasive ivor lewis esophagectomy after neoadjuvant therapy.
        Ann Thorac Surg. 2016; 101 (Epub 2015 Dec 1. PMID:26652140): 1097-1103https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2015.09.062
        • Naffouje S.A.
        • Salloum R.H.
        • Khalaf Z.
        • Salti G.I.
        Outcomes of open versus minimally invasive Ivor-lewis esophagectomy for cancer: A propensity-score matched analysis of NSQIP database.
        Ann Surg Oncol. 2019; 26 (Epub 2019 Mar 29. PMID:30927192): 2001-2010https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-019-07319-6
        • Valsangkar N.
        • Salfity H.V.N.
        • Timsina L.
        • Ceppa D.P.
        • Ceppa E.P.
        • Birdas T.J.
        Operative time in esophagectomy: Does it affect outcomes?.
        Surgery. 2018; 164 (Epub 2018 Aug 16. PMID:30119872): 866-871https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2018.06.020
        • Xing X.
        • Gao Y.
        • Wang H.
        • Qu S.
        • Huang C.
        • Zhang H.
        • Wang H.
        • Sun K.
        Correlation of fluid balance and postoperative pulmonary complications in patients after esophagectomy for cancer.
        J Thorac Dis. 2015; 7 (PMID:26716037, PMCID: PMC4669283): 1986-1993https://doi.org/10.3978/j.issn.2072-1439.2015.11.24
        • Oh T.K.
        • Oh A.Y.
        • Hwang J.W.
        Association between perioperative fluid balance and 30-day unplanned readmission after major abdominal surgery.
        Surg Innov. 2019; 26 (Epub 2019 Mar 28. PMID:30920902): 401-407https://doi.org/10.1177/1553350619836856
        • Hikasa Y.
        • Suzuki S.
        • Mihara Y.
        • Tanabe S.
        • Shirakawa Y.
        • Fujiwara T.
        • Morimatsu H.
        Intraoperative fluid therapy and postoperative complications during minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: A single-center retrospective study.
        J Anesth. 2020; 34 (Epub 2020 Mar 30. PMID:32232660): 404-412https://doi.org/10.1007/s00540-020-02766-y
        • Glatz T.
        • Kulemann B.
        • Marjanovic G.
        • Bregenzer S.
        • Makowiec F.
        • Hoeppner J.
        Postoperative fluid overload is a risk factor for adverse surgical outcome in patients undergoing esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: A retrospective study in 335 patients.
        BMC Surg. 2017 13; 17 (PMID:28086855, PMCID: PMC5237209): 6https://doi.org/10.1186/s12893-016-0203-9
        • Wolter S.
        • Duprée A.
        • ElGammal A.
        • Runkel N.
        • Heimbucher J.
        • Izbicki J.R.
        • Mann O.
        • Busch P.
        Mentorship programs in bariatric surgery reduce perioperative complication rate at equal short-term outcome-results from the optimize trial.
        Obes Surg. 2019; 29 (PMID:30187421): 127-136https://doi.org/10.1007/s11695-018-3495-2
        • Rice M.K.
        • Hodges J.C.
        • Bellon J.
        • Borrebach J.
        • Al Abbas A.I.
        • Hamad A.
        • Knab L.M.
        • Moser A.J.
        • Zureikat A.H.
        • Zeh H.J.
        • Hogg M.E.
        Association of mentorship and a formal robotic proficiency skills curriculum with subsequent generations' learning curve and safety for robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy.
        JAMA Surg. 2020; 155 (PMID:32432666, PMCID: PMC7240650): 607-615https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2020.1040