Search

Background: Minimal access surgery (MAS) has suggested improvements in clinical outcomes compared to open surgery in several abdominal elective and emergency surgeries. The aims of this study were to compare England with the United States in the utilisation of MAS and mortality from four common abdominal surgical emergencies.Methods: Between 2006 and 2012, the rate of MAS and in-hospital mortality for appendicitis, incarcerated or strangulated abdominal hernia, small or large bowel and peptic ulcer perforation were compared between England and the United States. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to adjust for differences in baseline patient demographics.Results: 132,364 admissions in England were compared to an estimated 1,811,136 admissions in the United States. Minimal access surgery was used less commonly in England for appendicitis (odds ratio (OR) 0.27, 95% CI 0.267-0.278), abdominal hernia (OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.15-0.17), small or large bowel perforation (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.32-0.35) and peptic ulcer perforation (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.87-0.99). In-hospital mortality was increased in England compared to the United States for all four conditions: appendicitis (OR 2.11, 95% CI 1.66-2.68), abdominal hernia (OR 3.25, 95% CI 3.10-3.40), small or large bowel perforation (OR 3.88, 95% CI 3.76-3.99) and peptic ulcer perforation (OR 3.09, 95% CI 2.94-3.25). In England, after adjustment for patient demographics, open surgery was associated with increased in-hospital mortality for abdominal hernia (OR 1.80, 95% CI 1.26-2.71), small or large bowel perforation (OR 1.59, 95% CI 1.37-1.87) and peptic ulcer perforation (OR 2.31, 95% CI 1.91-2.82).Conclusions: Minimal access surgery was performed less commonly and in-hospital mortality was increased in England compared to the United States for common abdominal surgical conditions. Therefore, strategies to enhance adoption of MAS in emergency conditions in England need to be optimised and include appropriate patient selection and improved surgeon MAS training. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Robotic esophagogastric cancer surgery is gaining widespread adoption. This population-based cohort study aimed to compare rates of textbook outcomes (TOs) and survival from robotic minimally invasive techniques for esophagogastric cancer., Methods: Data from the United States National Cancer Database (NCDB) (2010-2017) were used to identify patients with non-metastatic esophageal or gastric cancer receiving open surgery (to the esophagus, n = 11,442; stomach, n = 22,183), laparoscopic surgery (to the esophagus [LAMIE], n = 4827; stomach [LAMIG], n = 6359), or robotic surgery (to the esophagus [RAMIE], n = 1657; stomach [RAMIG], n = 1718). The study defined TOs as 15 or more lymph nodes examined, margin-negative resections, hospital stay less than 21 days, no 30-day readmissions, and no 90-day mortalities. Multivariable logistic regression and Cox analyses were used to account for treatment selection bias., Results: Patients receiving robotic surgery were more commonly treated in high-volume academic centers with advanced clinical T and N stage disease. From 2010 to 2017, TO rates increased for esophageal and gastric cancer treated via all surgical techniques. Compared with open surgery, significantly higher TO rates were associated with RAMIE (odds ratio [OR], 1.41; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.27-1.58) and RAMIG (OR 1.30; 95% CI 1.17-1.45). For esophagectomy, long-term survival was associated with both TO (hazard ratio [HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.60-0.67) and RAMIE (HR 0.92; 95% CI 0.84-1.00). For gastrectomy, long-term survival was associated with TO (HR 0.58; 95% CI 0.56-0.60) and both LAMIG (HR 0.89; 95% CI 0.85-0.94) and RAMIG (HR 0.88; 95% CI 0.81-0.96). Subset analysis in high-volume centers confirmed similar findings., Conclusion: Despite potentially adverse learning curve effects and more advanced tumor stages captured during the study period, both RAMIE and RAMIG performed in mostly high-volume centers were associated with improved TO and long-term survival. Therefore, consideration for wider adoption but a well-designed phase 3 randomized controlled trial (RCT) is required for a full evaluation of the benefits conferred by robotic techniques for esophageal and gastric cancers., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Aim: Ongoing randomized controlled trials seek to evaluate the potential organ-preservation strategy of definitive chemoradiotherapy as a primary treatment for esophageal cancer. This population-based cohort study aimed to assess survival following definitive chemoradiotherapy (DCR) with or without salvage esophagectomy (SALV) in the treatment of esophageal cancer., Patients and Methods: Data from the National Cancer Database (NCDB) from 2004 to 2015, was used to identify patients with nonmetastatic esophageal cancer receiving either DCR (n = 5977) or neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy with planned esophagectomy (NCRS) (n = 13,555). Propensity score matching and multivariable analyses were used to account for treatment selection bias. Subset analyses compared patients receiving SALV after DCR with NCRS., Results: Comparison of baseline demographics of the unmatched cohort revealed that patients receiving NCRS were younger, had a lower burden of medical comorbidities, lower proportion of squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), and more positive lymph nodes. Following matching, NCRS was associated with significantly improved survival compared with DCR [hazard ratio (HR): 0.60, 95% confidence Interval (CI): 0.57-0.63, P < 0.001], which persisted in subset analyses of patients with adenocarcinoma (HR: 0.60, 95% CI: 0.56-0.63, P < 0.001) and SCC (HR: 0.58, 95% CI: 0.53-0.63, P < 0.001). Of 829 receiving SALV after DCR, 823 patients were matched to 1643 NCRS. There was no difference in overall survival between SALV and NCRS (HR: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.90-1.11, P = 1.0)., Conclusions: Surgery remains an integral component of the management of patients with esophageal cancer. Neoadjuvant therapy followed by planned esophagectomy appears to remain the optimum curative treatment regime in patients with locoregional esophageal cancer., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The impact of palliative gastrectomy for metastatic gastric adenocarcinoma, especially by site of metastasis remains unclear., Methods: The National Cancer Database, 2010-2015, was used to identify patients with clinical metastatic (cM1) gastric adenocarcinoma (n = 19,411) at diagnosis. The main variable was index management for cM1 gastric adenocarcinoma (ie, no treatment, palliative chemotherapy, or palliative gastrectomy). Cox multivariable analyses were used to account for treatment selection bias and reported as hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval., Results: Of 19,411 patients, 10,893 (56%) received palliative chemotherapy, and only 1,101 (6%) received palliative gastrectomy only. The median survival was 6.1 months, and 5-year survival was 4% in the entire cohort. Patients receiving palliative gastrectomy had a significantly longer survival than patients without any treatment or palliative chemotherapy (median: 12.8 vs 1.8 vs 9.5 months, P < .001), which remained after multivariable adjustment (HR: 0.76, 95% confidence interval: 0.71-0.81, P < .001) compared with palliative chemotherapy. Stratified analyses by clinical nodal stage (cN) demonstrated survival benefit with palliative gastrectomy: cN0 (HR: 0.71, 95% confidence interval: 0.62-0.82), cN1 (HR: 0.68, 95% confidence interval: 0.59-0.79), cN2 (HR: 0.86, 95% confidence interval: 0.70-0.94), and cN3 (HR: 0.82, 95% confidence interval: 0.70-0.92) over palliative chemotherapy. Stratified analyses by metastasis site demonstrated that palliative gastrectomy remained superior compared with palliative chemotherapy for metastatic disease limited to liver, bone, and peritoneum, but equivalent to lung metastasis and inferior to brain metastasis., Conclusion: Palliative gastrectomy appears to have a modest survival benefit over palliative chemotherapy alone. Differences in outcomes by site of metastasis warrant further research to understand tumor biology and identify specific subgroups which may benefit from palliative gastrectomy., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objective: To compare the United States and England for the utilization of surgical intervention and in-hospital mortality from 5 gastrointestinal emergencies in octogenarians., Background: The proportion of older adults is growing and will represent a substantial challenge to clinicians in the next decade., Methods: Between 2006 and 2012, the rate of surgical intervention and in-hospital mortality for 5 index conditions for octogenarians were compared between the United States and England: appendicitis, incarcerated/strangulated abdominal hernia, perforation of esophagus, small or large bowel, and peptic ulcer. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to adjust for underlying differences in patient demographics., Results: Thirty-two thousand one hundred fifty-one admissions of octogenarians in England for 5 index surgical emergencies were compared with 162,142 admissions in the USA.Surgical intervention was significantly more common in the USA than in England for all 5 conditions: appendicitis [odds ratio (OR) 4.63, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 4.21-5.09], abdominal hernia (OR 2.06, 95% CI 1.97-2.15), perforated esophagus (OR 1.71, 95% CI 1.31-2.24), small and large bowel perforation (OR 4.33, 95% CI 4.12-4.56), and peptic ulcer perforation (OR 4.63, 95% CI 4.27-5.02). In-hospital mortality was significantly more common in England than in the USA for all 5 conditions: appendicitis (OR 3.22, 95% CI 2.73-3.78), abdominal hernia (OR 3.49, 95% CI 3.29-3.70), perforated esophagus (OR 4.06, 95% CI 3.03-5.44), small and large bowel perforation (OR 6.97, 95% CI 6.60-7.37), and peptic ulcer perforation (OR 3.67, 95% CI 3.40-3.96)., Conclusion: Surgery is used less commonly in England for emergency gastrointestinal conditions in octogenarians, which may be associated with a high rate of in-hospital mortality from these conditions compared with the USA., Competing Interests: The authors declared no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2019 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To examine differences between England and the USA in the rate of surgical intervention and in-hospital mortality for 7 index surgical emergencies., Background: Considerable international variation exists in the configuration, provision, and outcomes of emergency healthcare., Methods: Patients aged <80 years hospitalized with 1 of 7 surgical emergencies (ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm, aortic dissection, appendicitis, perforated esophagus, peptic ulcer, small bowel or large bowel, and incarcerated or strangulated hernias) were identified from English Hospital Episode Statistics and the USA Nationwide Inpatient Sample (2006-2012) and classified by whether they received a corrective surgical intervention. The rates of surgical intervention and population mortality were compared between England and the USA after adjustment for patient demographic factors., Results: From 2006 to 2012, there were 136,047 admissions in English hospitals and 1,863,626 admissions in US hospitals due to the index surgical emergencies.Proportion of patients receiving no surgical intervention, for all 7 conditions was greater in the England (OR 4.25, 1.55, 8.53, 1.92, 2.06, 2.42, 1.75) and population in-hospital mortality was greater in England (OR 1.34, 1.67, 2.22, 1.65, 2.7, 4.46, 3.22) for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm, aortic dissection, appendicitis, perforated esophagus, peptic ulcer, small bowel or large bowel, and incarcerated or strangulated hernias respectively.In England (where follow-up was available), lack of utilization of surgery was also associated with increased in-hospital and long-term mortality for all conditions., Conclusion: England and US hospitals differ in the threshold for surgical intervention, which may be associated with increases in mortality in England for these 7 general surgical emergencies.

Objective: To determine the difference in in-hospital mortality and length of hospital stay (LOS) after esophagectomy between the United States and England., Background: Since 2001, complex procedures such as esophagectomy have been centralized in England, but in the United States no formal plan for centralization exists., Methods: Patients who underwent esophagectomy for cancer between 2005 and 2010 were identified from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (United States) and the Hospital Episodes Statistics (England). In-hospital mortality and LOS were compared., Results: There were 7433 esophagectomies performed in 66 English hospitals and 5858 resections in 775 US hospitals; median number of resections per center per year was 17.5 in England and 2 in the United States. In-hospital mortality was greater in US hospitals (5.50% vs 4.20%, P = 0.001). In multiple regression analysis, predictors of mortality included patient age, comorbidities, hospital volume, and surgery performed in the United States [odds ratio (OR) = 1.20 (1.02-1.41), P = 0.03]. Median LOS was greater in the English hospitals (15 vs 12 days, P < 0.001). However, when subset analysis was done on high-volume centers in both health systems, mortality was significantly better in US hospitals (2.10% vs 3.50%, P = 0.02). LOS was also seen to decrease in the US high-volume centers but not in England., Conclusions: The findings from this international comparison suggest that centralization of high-risk cancer surgery to centers of excellence with a high procedural volume translates into an improved clinical outcome. These findings should be factored into discussions regarding future service configuration of major cancer surgery in the United States.

Background: The aim of this study is to determine the effect of the implementation and evolution of a multidisciplinary esophagectomy care pathway on postoperative outcomes over a 20-year experience., Study Design: All patients undergoing esophagectomy for cancer between 1991 and 2012 were included. Patients were divided into four groups (Gp1 1991-1996, Gp2 1997-2002, Gp3 2003-2007, and Gp4 2008-2012)., Results: Five hundred and ninety-five patients were included (Gp1 92, Gp2 159, Gp3 161, and Gp4 183). Age remained consistent over time; however, a progressive significant increase was observed in BMI and Charlson comorbidity index. Increases were also noted in patients with clinical stage III cancers, in the use of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, in salvage esophagectomy and in the utilization of pretreatment jejunostomy. We observed a significant reduction in estimated blood loss (EBL) and operative room IV fluid administration (ORFA) during the study period. Median ICU stay and length of hospital stay (LOS) (10 (5-50) to 8 (5-115) days) decreased over time. In-hospital mortality (0.3 %) and postoperative complications remained consistent over time. cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis showed that EBL, ORFA, and LOS all declined during the study period, reaching mean values at case 120, 310, and 175, respectively., Conclusions: The results of this study show that process improvement within the pathway is likely more significant than the level of comorbidities, application of neoadjuvant chemoradiation, or technical approach in patients undergoing esophagectomy.

Background: The presence of mixed evidence about the value of lymphadenectomy in gastric cancer surgery coupled with the difference in patients' demographics and tumor stage between the West and East have doubted the needs to standardize surgical techniques in Western clinical practice. The purpose of this study was to compare survival rates between the West and East following gastrectomy in randomized, controlled, oncological trials with appropriate adjustment for confounding variables., Methods: Systematic search revealed 25 trials that have randomization into surgery and chemotherapy versus surgery alone between 1995 and 2012 (n = 7 (East) and n = 18 (West)). End points were 5-year survival and cancer recurrence., Results: There was association between gastrectomy performed in the East and improved 5-year survival (pooled odds ratio (OR) 4.83; 95 % confidence interval (CI) 3.27-7.12) and reduced cancer recurrence (pooled OR 0.33; 95 % CI 0.2-0.54). Association of improved 5-year survival with surgery in the East remained when meta-regression adjusted for the effect of age, sex, chemotherapy, tumor depth and nodal status, and gastrectomy type. Association of reduced cancer recurrence also persisted with meta-regression adjusting for age, chemotherapy, nodal status, and gastrectomy type. However, when adjustment for the percentage of patients with tumor depth T1 or 2 was made statistical significance was lost., Conclusions: This analysis shows association between gastrectomy performed in Eastern countries and improved survival. The known difference in surgical techniques between the East and the West is one potential unexamined variable that may be responsible in part for such discrepancy in outcomes.

Background: The aim of this study is to provide a contemporary quantitative analysis of the existing literature examining the relationship between surgical caseload and outcome following esophageal resection., Methods: Medline, Embase, trial registries, conference proceedings and reference lists were searched for trials comparing clinical outcome following esophagectomy from high- and low-volume hospitals since 2000. Primary outcomes were in-hospital and 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes were length of hospital stay and post-operative complications., Results: Nine appropriate publications comprising 27,843 esophagectomy operations were included, 12,130 and 15,713 operations were performed in low- and high-volume surgical units, respectively. Esophagectomy at low-volume hospitals was associated with a significant increase in incidence of in-hospital (8.48% vs. 2.82%; pooled odds ratio (POR) = 0.29; P < 0.0001) and 30-day mortality (2.09% vs. 0.73%; POR = 0.31; P < 0.0001). There was insufficient data for conclusive statistical analysis of length of hospital stay or post-operative complications., Conclusions: This meta-analysis does suggest a benefit in the centralization of esophageal cancer surgery to high-volume institutions with respect to mortality. The outcomes of this study are of interest to patients, healthcare providers and payers, particularly regarding service reconfiguration and more specifically centralization of services. Future studies that look at long-term survival will help improve understanding of any late consequences such as survival and quality of life following esophageal surgery at low- and high-volume hospitals.