Association of individual surgeon volume and postoperative outcome in esophagomyotomy for achalasia.

BACKGROUND: Many surgical disciplines have demonstrated superior outcomes when procedures are performed at "high-volume". Esophagomyotomy is commonly performed for achalasia, however it's unclear what constitutes "high-volume" for this procedure, and if individual procedure volume and outcome are related. We identified physicians performing esophagomyotomy, stratified them by individual case volume, and examined their outcomes with the hypothesis that high-volume surgeons will be associated with improved outcomes as compared to low-volume surgeons. METHODS: The 2015-2019 Florida Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) inpatient dataset was queried for esophagomyotomy. Surgeons who performed ≥ 10 procedures during the study period were placed into the high-volume cohort, and those performing < 10 into the low-volume cohort. Groups were compared by length of stay, discharge disposition, and postoperative complications. Patient demographics were evaluated using student's t test and chi square test, p < 0.05 considered significant. RESULTS: Six hundred and sixty-two procedures performed by 135 surgeons were identified. The mean number of esophagomyotomies per surgeon was 4.9 (Range 1-147). The high-volume group (n = 12) performed 362 of the 662 procedures (55%), while the low-volume group (n = 123) performed the remaining 300 (45%). Patients of high-volume physicians had decreased length of stay (1.4 ± 0.8 days vs 4.9 ± 6.7 days, p = 0.01) and were more likely to be discharged to home following surgery (92.8% vs 86.0, p = 0.04). High volume physicians also had statistically significant differences in rates of urinary tract infection (1.4% vs 4.0%, p = 0.034), postoperative malnutrition (5.8% vs 11.0%, p = 0.015), and postoperative fluid and electrolyte disorders (5.5% vs 13.3%, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Surgeons who perform higher volumes of esophagomyotomies are associated with decreased length of stay, higher likelihood of patient discharge to home, and decreased rates of some postoperative complications. This research should prompt further inquiry into defining what constitutes a high-volume center in foregut surgery and their role in improving patient outcomes.

Eloquence-based reperfusion scoring and its ability to predict post-thrombectomy disability and functional status.

BACKGROUND: Angiographic reperfusion after endovascular thrombectomy in acute ischemic stroke is commonly graded using volume-based reperfusion scores such as the modified thrombolysis in cerebral infarct score. The location of non-reperfused regions is not included in modified thrombolysis in cerebral infarct score. We studied the predictive ability of an eloquence-based reperfusion score. METHODS: Consecutive cases of endovascular thrombectomy for anterior circulation strokes performed between January 2018 and April 2020 were included. Digital subtraction angiograms were reviewed by two blinded neurointerventionalist operators. Incomplete reperfusion was further classified by lobar regions lacking reperfusion to create various cohorts. Outcomes were graded four to seven days post-procedure with the National Institute of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) and 90 days post-procedure with the modified Rankin Scale. RESULTS: One hundred patients were identified. Via multivariate analysis, we found that frontal lobe non-reperfusion (mean difference (MD) = -1.60, p = 0.002) and occipital lobe non-reperfusion (MD = -1.68, p = 0.001) were associated with worse mental status improvement while left-sided stroke (MD = 2.02, p < 0.001) featured better improvement post-thrombectomy. Occipital lobe non-reperfusion (MD = -0.734, p = 0.009) was associated with the worse improvement of visual fields. The non-reperfusion of the frontal lobe was associated with a 1.732-worse NIHSS hemibody strength score (95% confidence interval (95%CI) = -3.39 to -0.072, p = 0.041). Worse improvement in NIHSS scores was found to be associated with frontal lobe non-reperfusion (MD = -5.34, 95%CI = -9.52 to -1.18, p = 0.013) and occipital lobe non-reperfusion (MD = -6.35, 95%CI = -10.4 to -2.31, p = 0.002). Odds of achieving modified Rankin Scale of 0-2 at 90 days were decreased with frontal lobe non-reperfusion (odds ratio (OR) = 0.279, 95%CI = 0.090-0.869, p = 0.028) and left laterality (OR = 0.376, 95%CI = 0.153-0.922, p = 0.033). CONCLUSIONS: Eloquence-based reperfusion assessment is an important predictor for functional outcomes after thrombectomy.

Factors Associated With Decreased Accuracy of Modified Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarct Scoring Among Neurointerventionalists During Thrombectomy.

Background and Purpose: The modified Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarct (mTICI) score is used to grade angiographic outcome after endovascular thrombectomy. We sought to identify factors that decrease the accuracy of intraprocedural mTICI. Methods: We performed a 2-center retrospective cohort study comparing operator (n=6) mTICI scores to consensus scores from blinded adjudicators. Groups were also assessed by dichotomizing mTICI scores to 0­2a versus 2b­3. Results: One hundred thirty endovascular thrombectomy procedures were included. Operators and adjudicators had a pairwise agreement in 96 cases (73.8%). Krippendorff α was 0.712. Multivariate analysis showed endovascular thrombectomy overnight (odds ratio [OR]=3.84 [95% CI, 1.22­12.1]), lacking frontal (OR, 5.66 [95 CI, 1.36­23.6]), or occipital (OR, 7.18 [95 CI, 2.12­24.3]) region reperfusion, and higher operator mTICI scores (OR, 2.16 [95 CI, 1.16­4.01]) were predictive of incorrectly scoring mTICI intraprocedurally. With dichotomized mTICI scores, increasing number of passes was associated with increased risk of operator error (OR, 1.93 [95 CI, 1.22­3.05]). Conclusions: In our study, mTICI disagreement between operator and adjudicators was observed in 26.2% of cases. Interventions that took place between 22:30 and 4:00, featured frontal or occipital region nonperfusion, higher operator mTICI scores, and increased number of passes had higher odds of intraprocedural mTICI inaccuracy.