"Textbook outcome(s)" in colorectal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Colon and rectal surgery
Colorectal cancer
Colorectal surgery
Survival
Textbook outcome(s)
Journal
Irish journal of medical science
ISSN: 1863-4362
Titre abrégé: Ir J Med Sci
Pays: Ireland
ID NLM: 7806864
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 Jul 2024
10 Jul 2024
Historique:
received:
12
06
2024
accepted:
27
06
2024
medline:
10
7
2024
pubmed:
10
7
2024
entrez:
10
7
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Textbook outcome (TO) is a composite measure used in surgery to evaluate post operative outcomes. No review has synthesised the evidence in relation to TO regarding the elements surgeons are utilising to inform their TO composite measure and the rates of TO achieved. Our systematic review and meta analysis was conducted in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) recommendations. PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane central registry of controlled trials were searched up to 8th November 2023. Pooled proportions of TO, clinical factors considered and risk factors in relation to TO are reported. Fifteen studies with 301,502 patients were included in our systematic review while fourteen studies comprising of 247,843 patients were included in our meta-analysis. Pooled rates of TO achieved were 55% with a 95% confidence interval (95% CI) of 54-55%. When stratified by elective versus mixed case load, rates were 56% (95% CI 49-62) and 54% (95% CI 50-58), respectively. Studies reported differing definitions of TO. Reported predictors of achieving TO include age, left sided surgery and elective nature. TO is achieved, on average in 55% of reported cases and it may predict short and long term post operative patient outcomes. This study did not detect a difference in rates between elective versus mixed case load TO proportions. There is no standardised definition in use of TO. Standardisation of the composite is likely required to enable meaning comparison using TO in the future and a Delphi consensus is warranted.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Textbook outcome (TO) is a composite measure used in surgery to evaluate post operative outcomes. No review has synthesised the evidence in relation to TO regarding the elements surgeons are utilising to inform their TO composite measure and the rates of TO achieved.
METHODS
METHODS
Our systematic review and meta analysis was conducted in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) recommendations. PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane central registry of controlled trials were searched up to 8th November 2023. Pooled proportions of TO, clinical factors considered and risk factors in relation to TO are reported.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Fifteen studies with 301,502 patients were included in our systematic review while fourteen studies comprising of 247,843 patients were included in our meta-analysis. Pooled rates of TO achieved were 55% with a 95% confidence interval (95% CI) of 54-55%. When stratified by elective versus mixed case load, rates were 56% (95% CI 49-62) and 54% (95% CI 50-58), respectively. Studies reported differing definitions of TO. Reported predictors of achieving TO include age, left sided surgery and elective nature.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
TO is achieved, on average in 55% of reported cases and it may predict short and long term post operative patient outcomes. This study did not detect a difference in rates between elective versus mixed case load TO proportions. There is no standardised definition in use of TO. Standardisation of the composite is likely required to enable meaning comparison using TO in the future and a Delphi consensus is warranted.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38985416
doi: 10.1007/s11845-024-03747-w
pii: 10.1007/s11845-024-03747-w
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
de Graaff MR, Elfrink AKE, Buis CI et al (2022) Defining Textbook Outcome in liver surgery and assessment of hospital variation: A nationwide population-based study. Eur J Surg Oncol 48(12):2414–2423
doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2022.06.012
pubmed: 35773091
Auer RC, Balaa FK (2021) Textbook Oncologic Outcome Summarizes the Perioperative Cancer Journey, but Should it be used to Judge Hospitals? Ann Surg Oncol 28(13):8025–8027
doi: 10.1245/s10434-021-10714-7
pubmed: 34609646
Kolfschoten NE, Kievit J, Gooiker GA and others (2013) Focusing on desired outcomes of care after colon cancer resections; hospital variations in “textbook outcome.” Eur J Surg Oncol 39(2):156–163
doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2012.10.007
pubmed: 23102705
Manatakis DK, Tzardi M, Souglakos J and others (2023) Achieving a Textbook Outcome in Colon Cancer Surgery Is Associated with Improved Long-Term Survival. Curr Oncol 30(3):2879–2888
doi: 10.3390/curroncol30030220
pubmed: 36975433
pmcid: 10047339
Rubio García JJ, Mauri Barberá F, Villodre Tudela C and others (2023) Textbook outcome in colon carcinoma: implications for overall survival and disease-free survival. Langenbecks Arch Surg 408(1):218
doi: 10.1007/s00423-023-02949-7
pubmed: 37249688
Yang CC, Tian YF, Liu WS et al (2020) The association between the composite quality measure “textbook outcome” and long term survival in operated colon cancer. Medicine (Baltimore) 99(40):e22447
doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000022447
pubmed: 33019430
Carbonell-Morote S, Yang HK, Lacueva J and others (2023) Textbook outcome in oncological gastric surgery: a systematic review and call for an international consensus. World J Surg Oncol 21(1):288
doi: 10.1186/s12957-023-03166-8
pubmed: 37697286
pmcid: 10496160
Aquina CT, Hamad A, Becerra AZ et al (2021) Is Textbook Oncologic Outcome a Valid Hospital-Quality Metric after High-Risk Surgical Oncology Procedures? Ann Surg Oncol 28(13):8028–8045
doi: 10.1245/s10434-021-10478-0
pubmed: 34392460
Neary C, O’Brien L, McCormack E et al (2023) Defining a textbook outcome for the resection of colorectal liver metastases. J Surg Oncol 127(4):616–624
doi: 10.1002/jso.27170
pubmed: 36541290
Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM and others (2021) The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 134:178–189
doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.03.001
pubmed: 33789819
Brown D (2020) A Review of the PubMed PICO Tool: Using Evidence-Based Practice in Health Education. Health Promot Pract 21(4):496–498
doi: 10.1177/1524839919893361
pubmed: 31874567
Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A (2016) Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev 5(1):210
doi: 10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4
pubmed: 27919275
pmcid: 5139140
Wells G, Shea B, O'Connell D, Peterson j, Welch V, Losos M, Tugwell P (2000) The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) for Assessing the Quality of Non-Randomized Studies in Meta-Analysis
Barker TH, Migliavaca CB, Stein C et al (2021) Conducting proportional meta-analysis in different types of systematic reviews: a guide for synthesisers of evidence. BMC Med Res Methodol 21(1):189
doi: 10.1186/s12874-021-01381-z
pubmed: 34544368
pmcid: 8451728
Nyaga VN, Arbyn M, Aerts M (2014) Metaprop: a Stata command to perform meta-analysis of binomial data. Arch Public Health 72(1):39
doi: 10.1186/2049-3258-72-39
pubmed: 25810908
pmcid: 4373114
Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG (2003) Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 327(7414):557–560
doi: 10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557
pubmed: 12958120
pmcid: 192859
Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JP, Rothstein HR (2010) A basic introduction to fixed-effect and random-effects models for meta-analysis. Res Synth Meth 1(2):97–111
doi: 10.1002/jrsm.12
Hunter JP, Saratzis A, Sutton AJ et al (2014) In meta-analyses of proportion studies, funnel plots were found to be an inaccurate method of assessing publication bias. J Clin Epidemiol 67(8):897–903
doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.03.003
pubmed: 24794697
Ganjouei AA, Romero-Hernandez F, Conroy PC, Miller P, Calthorpe L, Wang JJ, et al. (2023) A Novel Machine Learning Approach to Predict Textbook Outcome in Colectomy. Diseases of the Colon & Rectum 10.1097
Farah E, Abreu AA, Rail B et al (2023) Perioperative outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis. World J Surg Oncol 21(1):272
doi: 10.1186/s12957-023-03138-y
pubmed: 37644538
pmcid: 10466759
Maeda Y, Iwatsuki M, Mitsuura C and others (2023) Textbook outcome contributes to long-term prognosis in elderly colorectal cancer patients. Langenbecks Arch Surg 408(1):1–7
doi: 10.1007/s00423-023-02992-4
Shaikh CF, Woldesenbet S, Munir MM, Moazzam Z, Endo Y, Alaimo L, et al. (2023) Association between the Environmental Quality Index and Textbook Outcomes Among Medicare Beneficiaries Undergoing Surgery for Early-Stage Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma. J Gastrointest Surg 1–10
Tetley JC, Jacobs MA, Kim J and others (2022) Association of Insurance Type With Colorectal Surgery Outcomes and Costs at a Safety-Net Hospital: A Retrospective Observational Study. Ann Surg Open 3(4):e215
doi: 10.1097/AS9.0000000000000215
pubmed: 36590892
pmcid: 9780053
Taffurelli G, Montroni I, Ghignone F and others (2023) Frailty assessment can predict textbook outcomes in senior adults after minimally invasive colorectal cancer surgery. Eur J Surg Oncol 49(3):626–632
doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2022.11.006
pubmed: 36396488
Naffouje SA, Ali MA, Kamarajah SK et al (2022) Assessment of textbook oncologic outcomes following proctectomy for rectal cancer. J Gastrointest Surg 26(6):1286–1297
doi: 10.1007/s11605-021-05213-9
pubmed: 35441331
Yang C-C, Tian Y-F, Liu W-S, Chou C-L, Cheng L-C, Chu S-S, Lee C-C (2020) The association between the composite quality measure “textbook outcome” and long term survival in operated colon cancer. Medicine 99(40)
van Groningen JT, Ceyisakar IE, Gietelink L and others (2020) Identifying best performing hospitals in colorectal cancer care; is it possible? Eur J Surg Oncol 46(6):1144–1150
doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2020.02.024
pubmed: 32178963
Mehta R, Tsilimigras DI, Paredes AZ and others (2020) Comparing textbook outcomes among patients undergoing surgery for cancer at US News & World Report ranked hospitals. J Surg Oncol 121(6):927–935
doi: 10.1002/jso.25833
pubmed: 32124433
pmcid: 9292307
Paro A, Dalmacy D, Madison Hyer J et al (2021) Impact of residential racial integration on postoperative outcomes among Medicare beneficiaries undergoing resection for cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 28(12):7566–7574
doi: 10.1245/s10434-021-10034-w
pubmed: 33895902
Warps A, Detering R, Tollenaar R, Tanis P, Dekker J, group DCA (2021) Textbook outcome after rectal cancer surgery as a composite measure for quality of care: A population-based study. Eur J Surg Oncol 47(11):2821–9
Russolillo N, Gentile V, Ratti F and others (2022) Incidence and predictors of textbook outcome after simultaneous liver and rectal surgeries for Stage IV rectal cancer. Colorectal Dis 24(1):50–58
doi: 10.1111/codi.15912
pubmed: 34523208
Dimick JB, Staiger DO, Hall BL et al (2013) Composite measures for profiling hospitals on surgical morbidity. Ann Surg 257(1):67–72
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e31827b6be6
pubmed: 23235395
Danielsen AK, Burcharth J, Rosenberg J (2013) Patient education has a positive effect in patients with a stoma: a systematic review. Colorectal Dis 15(6):e276–e283
doi: 10.1111/codi.12197
pubmed: 23470040
Wasserberg N (2014) Interval to surgery after neoadjuvant treatment for colorectal cancer. World J Gastroenterol 20(15):4256–4262
doi: 10.3748/wjg.v20.i15.4256
pubmed: 24764663
pmcid: 3989961
Lurkin A, Ducimetière F, Vince DR and others (2010) Epidemiological evaluation of concordance between initial diagnosis and central pathology review in a comprehensive and prospective series of sarcoma patients in the Rhone-Alpes region. BMC Cancer 10(1):150
doi: 10.1186/1471-2407-10-150
pubmed: 20403160
pmcid: 2873387
Ashraf Ganjouei A, Romero-Hernandez F, Conroy PC, Miller P, Calthorpe L, Wang JJ, et al. (2023) A Novel Machine Learning Approach to Predict Textbook Outcome in Colectomy. Dis Colon Rectum
Shafer SL, Dexter F (2012) Publication Bias, Retrospective Bias, and Reproducibility of Significant Results in Observational Studies. Anesth Analg 114(5):931–932
doi: 10.1213/ANE.0b013e31824a0b5b
pubmed: 22523409
Mac Curtain BM, O’Mahony A, Temperley HC, Ng ZQ (2023) Enhanced recovery after surgery protocols and emergency surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. ANZ J Surg 93(7–8):1780–1786
doi: 10.1111/ans.18550
pubmed: 37282791
Jiang W-Z, Xu J-M, Xing J-D and others (2022) Short-term Outcomes of Laparoscopy-Assisted vs Open Surgery for Patients With Low Rectal Cancer: The LASRE Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Oncol 8(11):1607–1615
doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2022.4079
pubmed: 36107416
pmcid: 9478880
Xue Y, Li S, Guo S and others (2023) Evaluation of the advantages of robotic versus laparoscopic surgery in elderly patients with colorectal cancer. BMC Geriatr 23(1):105
doi: 10.1186/s12877-023-03822-4
pubmed: 36803225
pmcid: 9942364
Biondi A, Grosso G, Mistretta A et al (2013) Laparoscopic-assisted versus open surgery for colorectal cancer: short- and long-term outcomes comparison. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 23(1):1–7
doi: 10.1089/lap.2012.0276
pubmed: 23004676
pmcid: 3698686