An International Expert Delphi Consensus on Defining Textbook Outcome in Liver Surgery (TOLS).
Journal
Annals of surgery
ISSN: 1528-1140
Titre abrégé: Ann Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0372354
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 May 2023
01 May 2023
Historique:
medline:
29
11
2023
pubmed:
11
8
2022
entrez:
10
8
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To reach global expert consensus on the definition of TOLS in minimally invasive and open liver resection among renowned international expert liver surgeons using a modified Delphi method. Textbook outcome is a novel composite measure combining the most desirable postoperative outcomes into one single measure and representing the ideal postoperative course. Despite a recently developed international definition of Textbook Outcome in Liver Surgery (TOLS), a standardized and expert consensus-based definition is lacking. This international, consensus-based, qualitative study used a Delphi process to achieve consensus on the definition of TOLS. The survey comprised 6 surgical domains with a total of 26 questions on individual surgical outcome variables. The process included 4 rounds of online questionnaires. Consensus was achieved when a threshold of at least 80% agreement was reached. The results from the Delphi rounds were used to establish an international definition of TOLS. In total, 44 expert liver surgeons from 22 countries and all 3 major international hepato-pancreato-biliary associations completed round 1. Forty-two (96%), 41 (98%), and 41 (98%) of the experts participated in round 2, 3, and 4, respectively. The TOLS definition derived from the consensus process included the absence of intraoperative grade ≥2 incidents, postoperative bile leakage grade B/C, postoperative liver failure grade B/C, 90-day major postoperative complications, 90-day readmission due to surgery-related major complications, 90-day/in-hospital mortality, and the presence of R0 resection margin. This is the first study providing an international expert consensus-based definition of TOLS for minimally invasive and open liver resections by the use of a formal Delphi consensus approach. TOLS may be useful in assessing patient-level hospital performance and carrying out international comparisons between centers with different clinical practices to further improve patient outcomes.
Sections du résumé
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
To reach global expert consensus on the definition of TOLS in minimally invasive and open liver resection among renowned international expert liver surgeons using a modified Delphi method.
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Textbook outcome is a novel composite measure combining the most desirable postoperative outcomes into one single measure and representing the ideal postoperative course. Despite a recently developed international definition of Textbook Outcome in Liver Surgery (TOLS), a standardized and expert consensus-based definition is lacking.
METHODS
METHODS
This international, consensus-based, qualitative study used a Delphi process to achieve consensus on the definition of TOLS. The survey comprised 6 surgical domains with a total of 26 questions on individual surgical outcome variables. The process included 4 rounds of online questionnaires. Consensus was achieved when a threshold of at least 80% agreement was reached. The results from the Delphi rounds were used to establish an international definition of TOLS.
RESULTS
RESULTS
In total, 44 expert liver surgeons from 22 countries and all 3 major international hepato-pancreato-biliary associations completed round 1. Forty-two (96%), 41 (98%), and 41 (98%) of the experts participated in round 2, 3, and 4, respectively. The TOLS definition derived from the consensus process included the absence of intraoperative grade ≥2 incidents, postoperative bile leakage grade B/C, postoperative liver failure grade B/C, 90-day major postoperative complications, 90-day readmission due to surgery-related major complications, 90-day/in-hospital mortality, and the presence of R0 resection margin.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
This is the first study providing an international expert consensus-based definition of TOLS for minimally invasive and open liver resections by the use of a formal Delphi consensus approach. TOLS may be useful in assessing patient-level hospital performance and carrying out international comparisons between centers with different clinical practices to further improve patient outcomes.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35946822
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000005668
pii: 00000658-990000000-00222
pmc: PMC10082050
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
821-828Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.
Références
Dijs-Elsinga J, Otten W, Versluijs MM, et al. Choosing a hospital for surgery: the importance of information on quality of care. Med Decis Making. 2010;30:544–555.
Ciria R, Gomez-Luque I, Ocaña S, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the short- and long-term outcomes for laparoscopic and open liver resections for hepatocellular carcinoma: updated results from the European Guidelines Meeting on Laparoscopic Liver Surgery, Southampton, UK, 2017. Ann Surg Oncol. 2019;26:252–263.
Di Fabio F, Samim M, Di Gioia P, et al. Laparoscopic major hepatectomies: clinical outcomes and classification. World J Surg. 2014;38:3169–3174.
Cipriani F, Rawashdeh M, Stanton L, et al. Propensity score-based analysis of outcomes of laparoscopic versus open liver resection for colorectal metastases. Br J Surg. 2016;103:1504–1512.
Halls MC, Alseidi A, Berardi G, et al. A comparison of the learning curves of laparoscopic liver surgeons in differing stages of the IDEAL paradigm of surgical innovation: standing on the shoulders of pioneers. Ann Surg. 2019;269:221–228.
Kolfschoten NE, Kievit J, Gooiker GA, et al. Focusing on desired outcomes of care after colon cancer resections; hospital variations in “textbook outcome. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2013;39:156–163.
Goutte N, Bendersky N, Barbier L, et al. Laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy: a population-based study. HPB. 2017;19:118–125.
He J, Amini N, Spolverato G, et al. National trends with a laparoscopic liver resection: results from a population based analysis. HPB. 2015;17:919–926.
Sharahi S, Abedian M ■ ■. Performance measurement. Zanjirani Farahani R, Asgari N, Davarzani H. Supply Chain and Logistics in National, International and Governmental Environment. Contributions to Management Science . Physica-Verlag HD; 2009.
Dimick JB, Staiger DO, Baser O, et al. Composite measures for predicting surgical mortality in the hospital. Health Aff. 2009;28:1189–1198.
Dimick JB, Birkmeyer NJ, Finks JF, et al. Composite measures for profiling hospitals on bariatric surgery performance. JAMA Surg. 2014;149:10.
Dimick JB, Staiger DO, Osborne NH, et al. Composite measures for rating hospital quality with major surgery. Health Serv Res. 2012;47:1861–1879.
Nolan T, Berwick DM. All-or-none measurement raises the bar on performance. JAMA. 2006;295:1168.
Merath K, Chen Q, Bagante F, et al. Textbook outcomes among medicare patients undergoing hepatopancreatic surgery. Ann Surg. 2020;271:1116–1123.
Merkow RP, Hall BL, Cohen ME, et al. Validity and feasibility of the American College of Surgeons Colectomy Composite Outcome Quality Measure. Ann Surg. 2013;257:483–489.
Busweiler LAD, Schouwenburg MG, van Berge Henegouwen MI, et al. Textbook outcome as a composite measure in oesophagogastric cancer surgery. Br J Surg. 2017;104:742–750.
Merath K, Chen Q, Bagante F, et al. A multi-institutional international analysis of textbook outcomes among patients undergoing curative-intent resection of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. JAMA Surg. 2019;154:1–9.
Görgec B, Benedetti Cacciaguerra A, Lanari J, et al. Assessment of textbook outcome in laparoscopic and open liver surgery. JAMA Surg. 2021;156:e212064.
Jünger S, Payne SA, Brine J, et al. Guidance on Conducting and REporting DElphi Studies (CREDES) in palliative care: recommendations based on a methodological systematic review. Palliat Med. 2017;31:684–706.
Burmeister EA, Jordan SJ, O’Connell DL, et al. Using a Delphi process to determine optimal care for patients with pancreatic cancer. Asia Pac J Clin Oncol. 2016;12:105–114.
Knight SR, Pathak S, Christie A, et al. Use of a modified Delphi approach to develop research priorities in HPB surgery across the United Kingdom. HPB. 2019;21:1446–1452.
Daniel VT, Alavi K, Davids JS, et al. The utility of the delphi method in defining anastomotic leak following colorectal surgery. Am J Surg. 2020;219:75–79.
Kazaryan AM, Røsok BI, Edwin B. Morbidity assessment in surgery: refinement proposal based on a concept of perioperative adverse events. ISRN Surg. 2013;2013:1–7.
Koch M, Garden OJ, Padbury R, et al. Bile leakage after hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery: a definition and grading of severity by the International Study Group of Liver Surgery. Surgery. 2011;149:680–688.
Rahbari NN, Garden OJ, Padbury R, et al. Posthepatectomy liver failure: a definition and grading by the International Study Group of Liver Surgery (ISGLS). Surgery. 2011;149:713–724.
Clavien PA, Barkun J, de Oliveira ML, et al. The Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications. Ann Surg. 2009;250:187–196.
Hyer JM, Beane JD, Spolverato G, et al. Trends in textbook outcomes over time: are optimal outcomes following complex gastrointestinal surgery for cancer increasing? J Gastrointest Surg. 2022;26:50–59.
Adam MA, Turner MC, Sun Z, et al. The appropriateness of 30-day mortality as a quality metric in colorectal cancer surgery. Am J Surg. 2018;215:66–70.
Knorr JM, Ericson KJ, Zhang JH, et al. Comparison of major complications at 30 and 90 days following radical cystectomy. Urology. 2021;148:192–197.
Talsma AK, Lingsma HF, Steyerberg EW, et al. The 30-day versus in-hospital and 90-day mortality after esophagectomy as indicators for quality of care. Ann Surg. 2014;260:267–273.
Mise Y, Vauthey JN, Zimmitti G, et al. 90-day postoperative mortality is a legitimate measure of hepatopancreatobiliary surgical quality. Ann Surg. 2015;262:1071.
Mayo SC, Shore AD, Nathan H, et al. Refining the definition of perioperative mortality following hepatectomy using death within 90 days as the standard criterion. HPB (Oxford). 2011;13:473.
Moris D, Shaw BI, Gloria J, et al. Textbook outcomes in liver transplantation. World J Surg. 2020;44:3470–3477.
Wiseman JT, Ethun CG, Cloyd JM, et al. Analysis of textbook outcomes among patients undergoing resection of retroperitoneal sarcoma: a multi-institutional analysis of the US Sarcoma Collaborative. J Surg Oncol. 2020;122:1189–1198.
Sweigert PJ, Eguia E, Baker MS, et al. Assessment of textbook oncologic outcomes following pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma. J Surg Oncol. 2020;121:936–944.
Andreou A, Aloia TA, Brouquet A, et al. Margin status remains an important determinant of survival after surgical resection of colorectal liver metastases in the era of modern chemotherapy. Ann Surg. 2013;257:1079–1088.
Cacciaguerra AB, Görgec B, Cipriani F, et al. Risk factors of positive resection margin in laparoscopic and open liver surgery for colorectal liver metastases: a new perspective in the perioperative assessment a European Multicenter Study. Ann Surg. 2022;275:E213–E221.
Martínez-Cecilia D, Wicherts DA, Cipriani F, et al. Impact of resection margins for colorectal liver metastases in laparoscopic and open liver resection: a propensity score analysis. Surg Endosc. 2021;35:809–818.
Donadon M, Terrone A, Procopio F, et al. Is R1 vascular hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma oncologically adequate? Analysis of 327 consecutive patients. Surgery. 2019;165:897–904.
Viganò L, Procopio F, Cimino MM, et al. Is tumor detachment from vascular structures equivalent to R0 resection in surgery for colorectal liver metastases? An observational cohort. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23:1352–1360.
Torzilli G, Procopio F, Viganò L, et al. Hepatic vein management in a parenchyma-sparing policy for resecting colorectal liver metastases at the caval confluence. Surgery. 2018;163:277–284.
Marshall MN, Shekelle PG, Leatherman S, et al. The public release of performance data: what do we expect to gain? A review of the evidence. JAMA. 2000;283:1866–1874.
Rashidian N, Abu, Hilal M. Applications of machine learning in surgery: ethical considerations. Artif Intell Surg. 2022;2:18–23.
Wagner M, Bodenstedt S, Daum M, et al. The importance of machine learning in autonomous actions for surgical decision making. Artif Intell Surg. 2022;2:64–79.
O’Brien SM, Shahian DM, DeLong ER, et al. Quality measurement in adult cardiac surgery: part 2-statistical considerations in composite measure scoring and provider rating. Ann Thorac Surg. 2007;83:S13–26.