Top

World Journal of Surgery

Published in:

01-11-2019 | Esophagus Resection | Original Scientific Report

International Variation in Surgical Practices in Units Performing Oesophagectomy for Oesophageal Cancer: A Unit Survey from the Oesophago-Gastric Anastomosis Audit (OGAA)

Author: Oesophago-Gastric Anastomosis Study Group on behalf of the West Midlands Research Collaborative

Published in: World Journal of Surgery | Issue 11/2019

Abstract

Background

Anastomotic leaks are associated with significant risk of morbidity, mortality and treatment costs after oesophagectomy. The aim of this study was to evaluate international variation in unit-level clinical practice and resource availability for the prevention and management of anastomotic leak following oesophagectomy.

Method

The Oesophago-Gastric Anastomosis Audit (OGAA) is an international research collaboration focussed on improving the care and outcomes of patients undergoing oesophagectomy. Any unit performing oesophagectomy worldwide can register to participate in OGAA studies. An online unit survey was developed and disseminated to lead surgeons at each unit registered to participate in OGAA. High-income country (HIC) and low/middle-income country (LMIC) were defined according to the World Bank whilst unit volume were defined as < 20 versus 20–59 versus ≥60 cases/year in the unit.

Results

Responses were received from 141 units, a 77% (141/182) response rate. Median annual oesophagectomy caseload was reported to be 26 (inter-quartile range 12–50). Only 48% (68/141) and 22% (31/141) of units had an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) program and ERAS nurse, respectively. HIC units had significantly higher rates of stapled anastomosis compared to LMIC units (66 vs 31%, p = 0.005). Routine post-operative contrast-swallow anastomotic assessment was performed in 52% (73/141) units. Stent placement and interventional radiology drainage for anastomotic leak management were more commonly available in HICs than LMICs (99 vs 59%, p < 0.001 and 99 vs 83%, p < 0.001).

Conclusions

This international survey highlighted variation in surgical technique and management of anastomotic leak based on case volume and country income level. Further research is needed to understand the impact of this variation on patient outcomes.

Available only for authorised users

Collaborators GBDM (2018) Global, regional, and national age-sex-specific mortality and life expectancy, 1950–2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Lancet 392(10159):1684–1735CrossRef

Arnold M, Soerjomataram I, Ferlay J et al (2015) Global incidence of oesophageal cancer by histological subtype in 2012. Gut 64(3):381–387CrossRef

Blencowe NS, Strong S, McNair AG et al (2012) Reporting of short-term clinical outcomes after esophagectomy: a systematic review. Ann Surg 255(4):658–666CrossRef

Low DE, Alderson D, Cecconello I et al (2015) International consensus on standardization of data collection for complications associated with esophagectomy: Esophagectomy Complications Consensus Group (ECCG). Ann Surg 262(2):286–294CrossRef

Busweiler LA, Henneman D, Dikken JL et al (2017) Failure-to-rescue in patients undergoing surgery for esophageal or gastric cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol 43(10):1962–1969CrossRef

Saeki H, Tsutsumi S, Tajiri H et al (2017) Prognostic significance of postoperative complications after curative resection for patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Ann Surg 265(3):527–533CrossRef

Molena D, Mungo B, Stem M et al (2014) Incidence and risk factors for respiratory complications in patients undergoing esophagectomy for malignancy: a NSQIP analysis. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 26(4):287–294CrossRef

Ferri LE, Law S, Wong KH et al (2006) The influence of technical complications on postoperative outcome and survival after esophagectomy. Ann Surg Oncol 13(4):557–564CrossRef

Low DE, Bodnar A (2013) Update on clinical impact, documentation, and management of complications associated with esophagectomy. Thorac Surg Clin 23(4):535–550CrossRef

10.

National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit on Global S (2019) Prioritizing research for patients requiring surgery in low- and middle-income countries. Br J Surg 106(2):e113–e120CrossRef

11.

Xia BT, Rosato EL, Chojnacki KA et al (2013) Major perioperative morbidity does not affect long-term survival in patients undergoing esophagectomy for cancer of the esophagus or gastroesophageal junction. World J Surg 37(2):408–415CrossRef

12.

Lagarde SM, de Boer JD, ten Kate FJ et al (2008) Postoperative complications after esophagectomy for adenocarcinoma of the esophagus are related to timing of death due to recurrence. Ann Surg 247(1):71–76CrossRef

13.

Findlay L, Yao C, Bennett DH et al (2017) Non-inferiority of minimally invasive oesophagectomy: an 8-year retrospective case series. Surg Endosc 31(9):3681–3689CrossRef

14.

Karl RC, Schreiber R, Boulware D et al (2000) Factors affecting morbidity, mortality, and survival in patients undergoing Ivor Lewis esophagogastrectomy. Ann Surg 231(5):635–643CrossRef

15.

Low DE, Allum W, De Manzoni G et al (2019) Guidelines for perioperative care in esophagectomy: enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS((R))) society recommendations. World J Surg 43(2):299–330CrossRef

16.

van der Werf LR, Busweiler LAD, van Sandick JW et al (2019) Reporting national outcomes after esophagectomy and gastrectomy according to the Esophageal Complications Consensus Group (ECCG). Ann Surg. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000003210 CrossRefPubMed

17.

Maynard NB (2016) I. AUGIS provision of Upper GI services document

18.

van Lanschot JJ, Hulscher JB, Buskens CJ et al (2001) Hospital volume and hospital mortality for esophagectomy. Cancer 91(8):1574–1578CrossRef

19.

Hsu PK, Chen HS, Wu SC et al (2014) Impact of hospital volume on long-term survival after resection for oesophageal cancer: a population-based study in Taiwandagger. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 46(6):e127–e135 (discussion e135) CrossRef

20.

Henneman D, Dikken JL, Putter H et al (2014) Centralization of esophagectomy: how far should we go? Ann Surg Oncol 21(13):4068–4074CrossRef

21.

Bank W (2019) Low and middle income | Data 2019. https://data.worldbank.org/income-level/low-and-middle-income. Accessed 12 July 2019

22.

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (2007) Acutely ill adults in hospital: recognising and responding to deterioration [Internet]. NICE, London [cited 2019 July 12]. (Clinical guideline [CG50]). Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg50

23.

Hagens ERC, Anderegg MCJ, van Berge Henegouwen MI et al (2018) International survey on the management of anastomotic leakage after esophageal resection. Ann Thorac Surg 106(6):1702–1708CrossRef

24.

Mamidanna R, Ni Z, Anderson O et al (2016) Surgeon volume and cancer esophagectomy, gastrectomy, and pancreatectomy: a population-based study in England. Ann Surg 263(4):727–732CrossRef

25.

Haverkamp L, Seesing MF, Ruurda JP et al (2017) Worldwide trends in surgical techniques in the treatment of esophageal and gastroesophageal junction cancer. Dis Esophagus 30(1):1–7PubMed

26.

Hu Z, Wang X, An X et al (2017) The diagnostic value of routine contrast esophagram in anastomotic leaks after esophagectomy. World J Surg 41(8):2062–2067CrossRef

27.

Jones CM, Heah R, Clarke B et al (2015) Should routine radiological assessment of anastomotic integrity be performed after oesophagectomy with cervical anastomosis? Best evidence topic (BET). Int J Surg 15:90–94CrossRef

28.

Cherny NI, Sullivan R, Torode J et al (2017) ESMO International Consortium Study on the availability, out-of-pocket costs and accessibility of antineoplastic medicines in countries outside of Europe. Ann Oncol 28(11):2633–2647CrossRef

29.

Kitagawa H, Namikawa T, Iwabu J et al (2018) Assessment of the blood supply using the indocyanine green fluorescence method and postoperative endoscopic evaluation of anastomosis of the gastric tube during esophagectomy. Surg Endosc 32(4):1749–1754CrossRef

30.

Armstrong G, Croft J, Corrigan N et al (2018) IntAct: intra-operative fluorescence angiography to prevent anastomotic leak in rectal cancer surgery: a randomized controlled trial. Colorectal Dis 20(8):O226–O234CrossRef

31.

Gustafsson UO, Scott MJ, Schwenk W et al (2013) Guidelines for perioperative care in elective colonic surgery: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS((R))) Society recommendations. World J Surg 37(2):259–284CrossRef

32.

Song W, Wang K, Zhang RJ et al (2016) The enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) program in liver surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Springerplus 5:207CrossRef

33.

Van Haren RM, Mehran RJ, Mena GE et al (2018) Enhanced recovery decreases pulmonary and cardiac complications after thoracotomy for lung cancer. Ann Thorac Surg 106(1):272–279CrossRef

34.

Xiong J, Szatmary P, Huang W et al (2016) Enhanced recovery after surgery program in patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy: a PRISMA-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore) 95(18):e3497CrossRef

35.

Zhang L, Zhong Y, Lin H et al (2016) Outcomes of laparoscopy combined with enhanced recovery pathway for reversal of Hartmann’s procedure. Indian J Surg 78(6):453–457CrossRef

36.

Parise P, Ferrari C, Cossu A et al (2018) Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathway in esophagectomy: is a reasonable prediction of hospital stay possible? Ann Surg 270:77–83CrossRef

37.

Varagunam M, Hardwick R, Riley S et al (2018) Changes in volume, clinical practice and outcome after reorganisation of oesophago-gastric cancer care in England: a longitudinal observational study. Eur J Surg Oncol 44(4):524–531CrossRef

Title: International Variation in Surgical Practices in Units Performing Oesophagectomy for Oesophageal Cancer: A Unit Survey from the Oesophago-Gastric Anastomosis Audit (OGAA)
Author: Oesophago-Gastric Anastomosis Study Group on behalf of the West Midlands Research Collaborative
Publication date: 01-11-2019
Publisher: Springer International Publishing
Keywords: Esophagus Resection
Esophagus Resection
Published in: World Journal of Surgery / Issue 11/2019
Print ISSN: 0364-2313
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2323
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-019-05080-1

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

International Variation in Surgical Practices in Units Performing Oesophagectomy for Oesophageal Cancer: A Unit Survey from the Oesophago-Gastric Anastomosis Audit (OGAA)

Abstract

Background

Method

Results

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Method

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 11/2019

Developing a Sustainable Renal Transplant Program in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: Outcome, Challenges, and Solutions

Preoperative Clinical Factors Associated with Short-Stay Laparoscopic Appendectomy

Provision of Surgical Care for Children Across Somaliland: Challenges and Policy Guidance

Pancreatectomy with Hepatic Artery Resection for Pancreatic Head Cancer

Trends in Demographics and Surgical Treatment of Weapon-Related Limb Injuries Over Two Decades in a Resource-Scarce Setting

Ten-year Audit of Safe Bail-Out Alternatives to the Critical View of Safety in Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy