Cost of open and laparoscopic distal gastrectomy: surgeon perceptions versus the reality of hospital spending.

BACKGROUND: Rising health care costs have led to increasing focus on cost containment and accountability from health care providers. We sought to explore surgeon awareness of supply costs for open and laparoscopic distal gastrectomy. METHODS: Surveys were sent in 2015 to surgeons at 8 academic hospitals in Toronto who performed distal gastrectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma. Respondents were asked to estimate the total cost, type and number of disposable equipment pieces required to perform open and laparoscopic distal gastrectomy. We determined the accuracy of estimates through comparisons with procedural invoices for distal gastrectomy performed between Jan. 1, 2011, and Dec. 31, 2015. All values are in 2015 Canadian dollars. RESULTS: Of the 53 surveys sent out, 12 were completed (response rate 23%). Surgeon estimates of total supply costs ranged from $500 to $3000 and from $1500 to $5000 for open and laparoscopic cases, respectively. Estimated supply costs for requested equipment ranged from $464 to $2055 for open cases and from $1870 to $2960 for laparoscopic cases. Invoices for actual equipment yielded a mean of $821 (standard deviation $543) (range $89-$2613) for open cases and $2678 (standard deviation $958) (range $835-$4102) for laparoscopic cases. Estimates of total cost were within 25% of the median invoice total in 1 response (9%) for open cases and 3 (27%) of those for laparoscopic cases. CONCLUSION: Respondents failed to accurately estimate equipment costs. The variation in true total costs and estimates of supply costs represents an opportunity for intraoperative cost minimization, efficient equipment selection and value-based purchasing arrangements.

CONTEXTE: En raison de l'augmentation des coûts des soins de santé on attend des professionnels qu'ils mettent davantage l'accent sur les restrictions budgétaires et l'imputabilité. Nous avons voulu vérifier à quel point les chirurgiens sont conscients du coût des fournitures utilisés dans les cas de gastrectomie distale ouverte et laparoscopique. MÉTHODES: Des questionnaires ont été envoyés en 2015 aux chirurgiens de 8 hôpitaux universitaires de Toronto qui pratiquent la gastrectomie distale pour l'adénocarcinome de l'estomac. On demandait aux participants d'estimé le coût total, le type et le nombre de fournitures jetables requises pour une gastrectomie distale ouverte et laparoscopique. Nous avons déterminé l'exactitude des estimations en comparant les factures pour les interventions de gastrectomie distale effectuées entre le 1er janvier 2011 et le 31 décembre 2015. Toutes les valeurs sont présentées en dollars canadiens. RÉSULTATS: Parmi les 53 questionnaires envoyés, 12 sont revenus complétés (taux de réponse 23 %). Les estimations des chirurgiens pour le coût total des fournitures allaient de 500 $ à 3000 $ et de 1500 $ à 5000 $ pour les interventions ouvertes et laparoscopiques, respectivement. Le coût estimé des fournitures pour l'équipement nécessaire variait de 464 $ à 2055 $ pour les interventions ouvertes et de 1870 $ à 2960 $ pour les interventions laparoscopiques. Les factures soumises pour les équipements réellement utilisés ont été en moyenne de 821 $ (écart-type 543 $) (éventail 89 $-2613 $) pour les interventions ouvertes et de 2678 $ (écart-type 958 $) (éventail 835 $-4102 $) pour les interventions laparoscopiques. Les estimations des coûts totaux se situaient à plus ou moins 25 % du montant total médian des factures dans 1 réponse (9 %) pour les interventions ouvertes et dans 3 réponses (27 %) pour les interventions laparoscopiques. CONCLUSION: Les participants n'ont pas été en mesure d'estimer avec exactitude le coût des fournitures. Cet écart entre les coûts totaux réels et estimés représente une occasion de réduire les coûts peropératoires, de sélectionner les équipements de façon efficiente et de conclure des contrats d'achat en fonction de la valeur.

Comparison of two novel staging systems with the TNM system in predicting stage III colon cancer survival.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Adaptations of the TNM staging system that incorporate the Lymph Node Ratio (LNR) have been proposed for stage III colon cancer. This study compared the concordance of two novel staging systems and the TNM system with observed survival outcomes in stage III patients. METHODS: A review of patients who underwent surgery for stage III colon cancer between January 2002 and April 2015 at a tertiary care centre was performed. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate the 5-year overall (OS) and disease free survival (DFS) rates, and the concordance probability was calculated to evaluate the discriminatory power of the staging systems. RESULTS: Two hundred and sixty-one patients were identified. For TNM stages IIIA, IIIB, and IIIC, 5-year OS was 83.4%, 67.6%, and 38.3%, respectively (P < 0.001). All three staging systems were independently predictive of OS and DFS (P < 0.001). However, the novel staging system by Sugimoto et al18 was the most favourable prognostic tool, with a concordance of 0.646 for DFS and 0.659 for OS. CONCLUSIONS: The novel staging system by Sugimoto et al18 was superior to the TNM system. Incorporating LNR into staging models for node positive colon cancers may improve survival information available to patients and potentially aid treatment decisions.

Is quality important to our patients? The relationship between surgical outcomes and patient satisfaction.

BACKGROUND: With greater transparency in health system reporting and increased reliance on patient-centred outcomes, patient satisfaction has become a priority in delivering quality care. We sought to explore the relationship between patient satisfaction and short-term outcomes in patients undergoing general surgical procedures. METHODS: Satisfaction surveys were distributed to patients following discharge from the general surgery service at an academic hospital between June 2012 and March 2015. Short-term clinical outcomes were obtained from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. Patients rated their level of satisfaction on a 5-point Likert scale, and ordered logistic regression model was used to determine predictors of high patient satisfaction. RESULTS: 757 patient satisfaction surveys were completed. The mean age of patients surveyed was 52.2 years; 60.0% of patients were female. The majority of patients underwent a laparoscopic procedure (85.9%) and were admitted as inpatients following surgery (72%). 91.5% of patients rated satisfaction of 4-5, and 95.0% said they would recommend the service. The odds of overall satisfaction were lower in patients who had complications (OR: 0.52, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.87) and 30-day readmission (OR: 0.35, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.70). Having elective surgery was associated with higher odds of satisfaction (OR: 1.62, 95% CI 1.07 to 2.47). CONCLUSIONS: We found a significant association between patient satisfaction and both 30-day readmission and the occurrence of postoperative surgical complications. Given this association, further study is warranted to evaluate patient satisfaction as a healthcare quality indicator.

Robotic simultaneous resection of rectal cancer and liver metastases.

Surgical resection is the only potential cure for colorectal cancer with synchronous liver metastases (SLM). Simultaneous resection of colorectal cancer and SLM using robotic-assistance has been rarely reported. We demonstrate that robotic-assisted simultaneous resection of colorectal cancer and SLMs is feasible, safe, and has potential to demonstrate good oncologic outcomes.

Postoperative day one neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio as a predictor of 30-day outcomes in bariatric surgery patients.

BACKGROUND: The neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) is a marker that reflects systemic inflammation and organ dysfunction. Its use as a prognostic marker to predict complications following surgery has been recently described in the literature. OBJECTIVES: The objective of our study was to evaluate the use of postoperative day one (POD1) NLR as a predictor of 30-day outcomes in patients undergoing bariatric surgery. SETTING: University Hospital. METHODS: We performed a retrospective chart review of 789 patients who underwent bariatric surgery at our institution between March 2012 and May 2014. Data were collected from electronic patient records and administrative databases used for quality improvement. POD1 NLR values were obtained from complete blood counts along with a variety of 30-day clinical outcomes. Univariate and multivariable analyses were conducted to determine whether POD1 NLR ≥10 was associated with 30-day outcomes. RESULTS: Seven-hundred and thirty-seven patients were included in the study. Six-hundred and fifty-three Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgeries (88.6 %) and 84 sleeve gastrectomy surgeries (11.4 %) were performed. All surgeries were performed laparoscopically. We observed a 4.7 % readmission rate, 2.2 % reoperation rate, 10.7 % postoperative occurrence rate, and 0.1 % mortality rate. After covariate adjustment, POD1 NLR ≥10 was found to be significantly associated with overall complications (OR 1.98, 95 % CI 1.01-3.87), major complications (OR 3.71, 95 % CI 1.76-7.82), reoperation (OR 3.63, 95 % CI 1.14-11.6), and prolonged postoperative length of stay (OR 3.70, 95 % CI 2.2-6.22). CONCLUSION: POD1 NLR was independently associated with 30-day outcomes following bariatric surgery. This easily obtained inflammatory marker may be used to help identify patients at a higher risk of developing early complications.

A comparison of endoscopic localization error rate between operating surgeons and referring endoscopists in colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy for colorectal cancer (CRC) has a localization error rate as high as 21 %. Such errors can have substantial clinical consequences, particularly in laparoscopic surgery. The primary objective of this study was to compare accuracy of tumor localization at initial endoscopy performed by either the operating surgeon or non-operating referring endoscopist. METHODS: All patients who underwent surgical resection for CRC at a large tertiary academic hospital between January 2006 and August 2014 were identified. The exposure of interest was the initial endoscopist: (1) surgeon who also performed the definitive operation (operating surgeon group); and (2) referring gastroenterologist or general surgeon (referring endoscopist group). The outcome measure was localization error, defined as a difference in at least one anatomic segment between initial endoscopy and final operative location. Multivariate logistic regression was used to explore the association between localization error rate and the initial endoscopist. RESULTS: A total of 557 patients were included in the study; 81 patients in the operating surgeon cohort and 476 patients in the referring endoscopist cohort. Initial diagnostic colonoscopy performed by the operating surgeon compared to referring endoscopist demonstrated statistically significant lower intraoperative localization error rate (1.2 vs. 9.0 %, P = 0.016); shorter mean time from endoscopy to surgery (52.3 vs. 76.4 days, P = 0.015); higher tattoo localization rate (32.1 vs. 21.0 %, P = 0.027); and lower preoperative repeat endoscopy rate (8.6 vs. 40.8 %, P < 0.001). Initial endoscopy performed by the operating surgeon was protective against localization error on both univariate analysis, OR 7.94 (95 % CI 1.08-58.52; P = 0.016), and multivariate analysis, OR 7.97 (95 % CI 1.07-59.38; P = 0.043). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that diagnostic colonoscopies performed by an operating surgeon are independently associated with a lower localization error rate. Further research exploring the factors influencing localization accuracy and why operating surgeons have lower error rates relative to non-operating endoscopists is necessary to understand differences in care.

Preoperative repeat endoscopy for colorectal cancer: What is its role and when is it necessary?

SUMMARY: Many surgeons consider repeat endoscopy to be the standard of care for colorectal cancer; however, its utility in the preoperative setting is not well understood, especially given the lack of standardized guidelines on appropriate tumour localization and colonoscopic reporting. This often results in patients undergoing an unnecessary medical procedure during their preoperative evaluation. We discuss some of the issues surrounding the practice of preoperative repeat endoscopy as well as patient perspectives on the procedure. Our observations suggest that repeat endoscopy in the setting of colorectal cancer surgery may play a role in enabling transition of patient care between the initial endoscopist and the treating surgeon and in improving the patient experience. Patients with operable colorectal cancer appear to understand and support the current use of repeat endoscopy. However, improving preoperative care will require further research and ultimately the development of evidence-based clinical guidelines.

Comparison of robotic and laparoscopic colorectal resections with respect to 30-day perioperative morbidity.

BACKGROUND: Robotic surgery has emerged as a minimally invasive alternative to traditional laparoscopy. Robotic surgery addresses many of the technical and ergonomic limitations of laparoscopic surgery, but the literature regarding clinical outcomes in colorectal surgery is limited. We sought to compare robotic and laparoscopic colorectal resections with respect to 30-day perioperative outcomes. METHODS: The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was used to identify all patients who underwent robotic or laparoscopic colorectal surgery in 2013. We performed a logistic regression analysis to compare intraoperative variables and 30-day outcomes. RESULTS: There were 8392 patients who underwent laparoscopic colorectal surgery and 472 patients who underwent robotic colorectal surgery. The robotic cohort had a lower incidence of unplanned intraoperative conversion (9.5% v. 13.7%, p = 0.008). There were no significant differences between robotic and laparoscopic surgery with respect to other intraoperative and postoperative outcomes, such as operative duration, length of stay, postoperative ileus, anastomotic leak, venous thromboembolism, wound infection, cardiac complications and pulmonary complications. On multivariable analysis, robotic surgery was protective for unplanned conversion, while male sex, malignancy, Crohn disease and diverticular disease were all associated with open conversion. CONCLUSION: Robotic colorectal surgery has comparable 30-day perioperative morbidity to laparoscopic surgery and may decrease the rate of intraoperative conversion in select patients.

BACKGROUND: La chirurgie robotique est de plus en plus utilisée comme option de rechange peu effractive à la laparoscopie classique. La robotique permet de remédier à bon nombre des restrictions techniques et ergonomiques de la chirurgie laparoscopique, mais peu d'articles font état des résultats cliniques en chirurgie colorectale. Nous avons donc cherché à comparer les 2 techniques de résection colorectale en ce qui concerne les résultats peropératoires dans les 30 jours suivant l'intervention. METHODS: À l'aide de base de données du National Surgical Quality Improvement Program de l'American College of Surgeons, nous avons recensé tous les patients ayant subi une résection colorectale par chirurgie laparoscopique ou robotique en 2013. Nous avons ensuite mené une analyse de régression logistique pour comparer des variables peropératoires et les résultats après 30 jours. RESULTS: En tout, 8392 patients avaient subi une chirurgie colorectale par laparoscopie pendant la période visée, et 472 avaient subi une intervention par chirurgie robotique. Le second groupe avait une incidence plus faible de conversion peropératoire imprévue (9,5 % par rapport à 13,7 %; p = 0,008). On n'a relevé aucune différence significative entre les 2 types d'intervention quant aux autres résultats peropératoires et postopératoires, soit la durée de l'intervention, la durée du séjour à l'hôpital et la survenue d'un iléus, d'une fuite anastomotique, d'une thromboembolie veineuse, d'une infection de la plaie ou de complications cardiaques ou pulmonaires. D'après l'analyse multivariables, la chirurgie robotique préviendrait les conversions imprévues, tandis que le sexe masculin, la présence d'une tumeur maligne, la maladie de Crohn et la diverticulose colique étaient associés à une conversion peropératoire. CONCLUSION: Les taux de morbidité peropératoire après 30 jours pour une résection colorectale par chirurgie robotique et une intervention par chirurgie laparoscopique sont comparables. La chirurgie robotique pourrait de plus réduire le taux de conversion peropératoire chez certains patients.

Understanding the complexities of shared decision-making in cancer: a qualitative study of the perspectives of patients undergoing colorectal surgery.

BACKGROUND: Decisions leading up to surgery are fraught with uncertainty owing to trade-offs between treatment effectiveness and quality of life. Past studies on shared decision-making (SDM) have focused on the physician-patient encounter, with little emphasis on familial and cultural factors. The literature is scarce in surgical oncology, with few studies using qualitative interviews. Our objective was to explore the complexities of SDM within the setting of colorectal cancer (CRC) surgery. METHODS: An interdisciplinary team developed a semistructured questionnaire. Telephone interviews were conducted with CRC patients in the practice of 1 surgical oncologist. Data saturation was achieved and a descriptive thematic analysis was performed. RESULTS: We interviewed 20 patients before achieving data saturation. Three major themes emerged. First, family was considered as a crucial adjunct to the patient-provider dyad. Second, patients identified several facilitators to SDM, including a robust social support system and a competent surgical team. Although language was a perceived barrier, there was no difference in level of involvement in care between patients who spoke English fluently and those who did not. Finally, patients perceived a lack of choice and control in decision-making, thus challenging the very notion of SDM. CONCLUSION: Surgeons must learn to appreciate the role of family as a vital addition to the patient-provider dyad. Family engagement is crucial for CRC patients, particularly those undergoing surgical resection of late-stage disease. Surgeons must be aware of the uniqueness of decision-making in this context to empower patients and families.

CONTEXTE: Le choix de subir une chirurgie est toujours source d'incertitude en raison du fragile équilibre entre l'efficacité du traitement et la qualité de vie. Les études antérieures sur la prise de décision partagée se sont concentrées sur la relation médecin-patient; on a accordé peu d'importance aux facteurs familiaux et culturels qui entrent en jeu. En outre, la documentation scientifique ne foisonne pas d'études sur l'oncologie chirurgicale, et seules quelques données ont été recueillies au moyen d'entrevues qualitatives. Notre but était d'examiner les difficultés de la prise de décision partagée dans le contexte d'une chirurgie pour un cancer colorectal. MÉTHODES: Une équipe interdisciplinaire a conçu un questionnaire semi-structuré au moyen duquel nous avons interviewé par téléphone des patients atteints d'un cancer colorectal et suivis par le même chirurgien oncologue. Nous avons atteint le seuil de saturation des données, puis réalisé une analyse thématique descriptive. RÉSULTATS: Pour atteindre la saturation, nous avons interrogé 20 patients. Trois thèmes principaux sont ressortis. D'abord, la famille était considérée comme un précieux ajout au tandem patient-médecin. Ensuite, les patients ont énuméré quelques éléments qui facilitent la prise de décision partagée, notamment la présence d'un bon réseau de soutien social et d'une équipe de professionnels compétente. À noter : même si la langue était perçue comme un obstacle, nous n'avons observé aucune différence entre les patients qui maîtrisent bien l'anglais et les autres en ce qui concerne l'engagement. Enfin, les patients ne sentaient pas que leur opinion comptait pour beaucoup dans la prise de décision, ce qui remet en question la notion même de prise de décision partagée. CONCLUSION: Les chirurgiens doivent voir la famille comme un acteur de soutien essentiel au tandem patient-médecin. La participation de la famille est cruciale pour les patients atteints d'un cancer colorectal, surtout pour ceux qui subissent une résection chirurgicale à un stade avancé de la maladie. Les chirurgiens ne doivent pas oublier que chaque cas est unique, afin d'autonomiser les patients et leur famille.

Discrepancy between gastroenterologists' and general surgeons' perspectives on repeat endoscopy in colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: A myriad of localization options are available to endoscopists for colorectal cancer (CRC); however, little is known about the use of such techniques and their relation to repeat endoscopy before CRC surgery. We examined the localization practices of gastroenterologists and compared their perceptions toward repeat endoscopy to those of general surgeons. METHODS: We distributed a survey to practising gastroenterologists through a provincial repository. Univariate analysis was performed using the χ² test. RESULTS: Gastroenterologists (n = 69) reported using anatomical landmarks (91.3%), tattooing (82.6%) and image capture (73.9%) for tumour localization. The majority said they would tattoo lesions that could not be removed by colonoscopy (91.3%), high-risk polyps (95.7%) and large lesions (84.1%). They were equally likely to tattoo lesions planned for laparoscopic (91.3%) or open (88.4%) resection. Rectal lesions were less likely to be tattooed (20.3%) than left-sided (89.9%) or right-sided (85.5%) lesions. Only 1.4% agreed that repeat endoscopy is the standard of care, whereas 38.9% (n = 68) of general surgeons agreed (p < 0.001). General surgeons were more likely to agree that an incomplete initial colonoscopy was an indication for repeat endoscopy (p = 0.040). Further, 56% of general surgeons indicated that the findings of repeat endoscopy often lead to changes in the operative plan. CONCLUSION: Discrepancies exist between gastroenterologists and general surgeons with regards to perceptions toward repeat endoscopy and its indications. This is especially significant given that repeat endoscopy often leads to change in surgical management. Further research is needed to formulate practice recommendations that guide the use of repeat endoscopy, tattoo localization and quality reporting.

CONTEXTE: De nombreuses options de repérage s'offrent aux endoscopistes dans les cas de cancer colorectal; on en sait cependant peu sur l'utilisation de ces techniques et leur lien avec les endoscopies répétées avant les interventions chirurgicales de traitement de ce cancer. Nous avons étudié les pratiques de repérage employées par des gastroentérologues et comparé leurs perceptions des endoscopies répétées à celles des chirurgiens généralistes. MÉTHODES: Nous avons réalisé un sondage auprès de gastroentérologues en exercice figurant dans un répertoire provincial. Une analyse unidimensionnelle a été effectuée à l'aide du test χ². RÉSULTATS: Les gastroentérologues (n = 69) ont dit recourir à des repères anatomiques (91,3 %), au tatouage (82,6 %) et à des images (73,9 %) pour repérer les tumeurs. La majorité a dit tatouer les lésions ne pouvant être éliminées par coloscopie (91,3 %), les polypes à haut risque (95,7 %) et les lésions de grande taille (84,1 %). Ils étaient tout aussi susceptibles de tatouer les lésions devant être éliminées par résection laparoscopique (91,3 %) ou effractive (88,4 %). Ils étaient cependant moins susceptibles de tatouer les lésions rectales (20,3 %) que les lésions du côté gauche (89,9 %) ou du côté droit (85,5 %). Seul 1,4 % des gastroentérologues était d'avis que l'endoscopie répétée constitue une norme en matière de soins, contrairement à 38,9 % des chirurgiens généralistes (n = 68; p < 0,001). Les chirurgiens généralistes étaient plus nombreux à penser qu'une coloscopie initiale incomplète était susceptible d'être associée à des endoscopies répétées (p = 0,040). En outre, 56 % d'entre eux ont indiqué que les résultats d'endoscopies répétées menaient souvent à des changements sur le plan chirurgical. CONCLUSION: Il existe des divergences entre les perceptions des gastroentérologues et des chirurgiens généralistes quant aux endoscopies répétées et à leur indication. Ces divergences sont particulièrement pertinentes, étant donné que les endoscopies répétées entraînent souvent des changements aux interventions chirurgicales qui sont pratiquées ultérieurement. Des recherches approfondies seront nécessaires pour formuler des recommandations liées aux pratiques et orienter le recours aux endoscopies répétées et au repérage des lésions par tatouage ainsi que la production de rapports sur la qualité.

Knowledge and Perception of Bariatric Surgery Among Primary Care Physicians: a Survey of Family Doctors in Ontario.

PURPOSE: The primary objective of this study was to identify Ontario family physicians' knowledge and perceptions of bariatric surgery. METHODS: The study population included all physicians practicing family medicine in Ontario who were listed in the Canadian Medical Directory. A self-administered questionnaire consisting of 28 questions was developed and validated using a focus group of seven primary care physicians. The questionnaire was distributed to 1328 physicians. RESULTS: One hundred sixty-five surveys were completed. 8.8 % of physicians did not have any bariatric surgical patients, and 71.3 % had no more than five in their practice. 70.2 % referred no more than 5 % of their morbidly obese patients for surgery. Only 32.1 % had the appropriate equipment and resources to manage obese patients. 92.5 % of physicians would like to receive more education about bariatric surgery. Physicians with no history of referral (n = 21) were earlier into their practices and had less morbidly obese patients than physicians with previous referrals (n = 141). They were also less likely to discuss bariatric surgery with their patients (30 vs. 79.3 %; p < 0.001) and less likely to feel comfortable explaining procedure options (5.6 vs. 33.9 %; p = 0.013) and providing postoperative care (26.7 vs. 64.2 %; p = 0.005). 55.6 % would refer a family member for surgery, compared to 85.4 % of physicians with previous referrals; p = 0.002. CONCLUSION: There appears to be a knowledge gap in understanding the role of bariatric surgery in the treatment of obesity. There is an opportunity to improve education and available resources for primary care physicians surrounding patient selection and follow-up care. This may improve access to treatment.

Perception and Awareness of Bariatric Surgery in Canada: a National Survey of General Surgeons.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to assess Canadian general surgeons' knowledge of bariatric surgery and perceived availability of resources to manage bariatric surgery patients. METHODS: A self-administered questionnaire was developed using a focus group of general surgeons. The questionnaire was distributed at two large general surgery conferences in September and November 2012. The survey was also disseminated via membership association electronic newsletters in November and December 2012. RESULTS: One hundred sixty-seven questionnaires were completed (104 practicing surgeons, 63 general surgery trainees). Twenty respondents were bariatric surgeons. Among 84 non-bariatric surgeons, 68.3 % referred a patient in the last year for bariatric surgery, 79 % agreed that bariatric surgery resulted in sustained weight loss, and 81.7 % would consider referring a family member. Knowledge gaps were identified in estimates of mortality and morbidity associated with bariatric procedures. The majority of surgeons surveyed have encountered patients with complications from bariatric surgery in the last year. Over 50 % of surgeons who do not perform bariatric procedures reported not feeling confident to manage complications, 35.4 % reported having adequate resources and equipment to manage morbidly obese patients, and few are able to transfer patients to a bariatric center. Of the respondents, 73.3 % reported residency training provided inadequate exposure to bariatric surgery, and 85.3 % felt that additional continuing medical education resources would be useful. CONCLUSIONS: There appears to be support for bariatric surgery among Canadian general surgeons participating in this survey. Knowledge gaps identified indicate the need for more education and resources to support general surgeons managing bariatric surgical patients.

Comparison of clinical and economic outcomes between robotic, laparoscopic, and open rectal cancer surgery: early experience at a tertiary care center.

BACKGROUND: Robotic surgery has gained popularity in surgical oncology. Rectal cancer surgery, known to be technically challenging, may benefit from robotics in achieving better mesorectal dissection and may contribute to improved perioperative outcomes. The objective of this study was to compare early experience in robotic surgery to conventional approaches with regard to clinicopathologic and economic parameters. METHODS: A retrospective review using a prospectively maintained database of rectal cancer surgeries performed at a tertiary cancer center from 2007 to 2013 was conducted. These resections included those performed via laparotomy, laparoscopy, and robotic-assisted operations. Perioperative demographic and tumor characteristics were collected, and short-term clinicopathologic outcomes were compared. Additionally, economic variables were evaluated for each patient's episode of care. RESULTS: Seventy-nine cases were identified. Twenty-six were completed via open approach, 27 laparoscopically, and 26 via robotic assistance. Demographic characteristics were similar between all groups including age, gender, BMI, and Charlson score. Comparison of intraoperative characteristics showed a lower rate of conversion to laparotomy (12 vs. 37%, p = 0.05), and lower estimated blood loss (mean 296 vs. 524 cc, p = 0.04), in the robotic group compared to laparoscopy or open resection. There was no significant difference in quality of total mesorectal excision and number of lymph nodes harvested between the three cohorts. Postoperative complication rate, mean length of stay, 30-day readmission, and 30-day mortality were comparable among the cohorts. Median cost per episode of care was lower in laparoscopic surgery ($11,493), compared to open ($12,558) and robotic approach ($18,273); p = 0.029. CONCLUSIONS: The findings demonstrate similar perioperative and short-term outcomes between robotic surgery and conventional approaches. Robotic assistance is associated with decreased intraoperative blood loss and fewer conversions, albeit at an increased overall cost. Given these benefits, and as data and experience mature, future study is needed to fully define the value of the robotic approach.

Patient and operational factors affecting wait times in a bariatric surgery program in Toronto: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Increasing rates of obesity have led to growing demand for bariatric surgery. This has implications for wait times, particularly in publicly funded programs. This study examined the impact of patient and operational factors on wait times in a multidisciplinary bariatric surgery program. METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted involving patients who were referred to a tertiary care centre (University Health Network, Toronto Western Hospital, Toronto) for bariatric surgery between June 2008 and July 2011. Patient characteristics, dates of clinical assessments and records describing operational changes were collected. Univariable analysis and multivariable log-linear and parametric time-to-event regressions were performed to determine whether patient and operational covariates were associated with the wait time for bariatric surgery (i.e., length of preoperative evaluation). RESULTS: Of the 1664 patients included in the analysis, 724 underwent surgery with a mean wait time of 440 (standard deviation 198) days and a median wait time of 445 (interquartile range 298-533) days. Wait times ranged from 3 months to 4 years. Univariable and multivariable analyses showed that patients with active substance use (ß = 0.3482, p = 0.02) and individuals who entered the program in more recent operational periods (ß = 0.2028, p < 0.001) had longer wait times. Additionally, the median time-to-surgery increased over 3 discrete operational periods (characterized by specific program changes related to scheduling and staffing levels, and varying referral rates and defined surgical targets; p < 0.001). INTERPRETATION: Some patients could be identified at referral as being at risk for longer wait times. We also found that previous operational decisions significantly increased the wait time in the program since its inception. Therefore, careful consideration must be devoted to process-level decision-making for multistage bariatric surgical programs, because managerial and procedural changes can affect timely access to treatment.

Understanding Quality Issues in Your Surgical Department: Comparing the ACS NSQIP With Traditional Morbidity and Mortality Conferences in a Canadian Academic Hospital.

INTRODUCTION: Review of surgical complications in traditional morbidity and mortality (M&M) rounds remains an important mechanism to identify and discuss quality-of-care issues. This process relies on case selection by providers; therefore, complications identified for review may differ from those captured in comprehensive quality programs such as the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP). Additionally, although the ACS NSQIP captures robust data on complications in surgical wards, without strategies to disseminate this information to staff and improve practice, minimal change may result. The objective of this study was to compare complications identified by the ACS NSQIP with those captured in M&M conferences at a large Canadian academic hospital. METHODS: Retrospective medical record reviews of all patients admitted to the general surgery unit from March 2012 to March 2013 were reviewed. Number and types of complications were recorded for cases that were both submitted and reviewed in M&M rounds and those cases that were submitted but not reviewed. These complications were compared with those extracted from our local ACS NSQIP database. RESULTS: A total of 1348 general surgical procedures were performed. The ACS NSQIP captured complications in 143 patients compared with 58 patients identified for review in M&M rounds. Both the methods identified similar proportions of major and minor complications (ACS NSQIP 52% major, 48% minor; M&M 58% major, 42% minor). More postoperative deaths were entered into the ACS NSQIP (12) than in M&M conferences (8 reviewed and 2 submitted). The ACS NSQIP identified higher proportions of surgical site infections and readmissions. However, M&M conferences captured additional complications in patients who did not undergo surgery and identified potential quality issues in patients who did not ultimately experience an adverse outcome. CONCLUSIONS: M&M rounds and the ACS NSQIP provide important and potentially complementary data on surgical quality. Incorporating the ACS NSQIP outcomes data into traditional M&M conferences may help to optimize quality improvement efforts.

Preoperative Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio is a Better Prognostic Serum Biomarker than Platelet-to-Lymphocyte Ratio in Patients Undergoing Resection for Nonmetastatic Colorectal Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Current risk stratification tools for patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) rely on final surgical pathology but may be improved with the addition of novel serum biomarkers. The objective of this study was to evaluate the utility of preoperative NLR and PLR in predicting long-term oncologic outcomes in patients with operable CRC. METHODS: All patients who underwent curative resection for adenocarcinoma at a large tertiary academic hospital were identified. High NLR/PLR was evaluated preoperatively and defined by maximizing log-rank statistics. Recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared by the log-rank test. Univariate and multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression was used to identify associations with outcome measures. RESULTS: A total of 549 patients were included in the study. High NLR (≥2.6) was associated with worse RFS (hazard ratio [HR] 2.03, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.48-2.79, p < 0.001) and OS (HR 2.25, 95 % CI 1.54-3.29, p < 0.001). High PLR (≥295) also was associated with worse RFS (HR 1.68, 95 % CI 1.06-2.65, p = 0.028) and OS (HR 1.81, 95 % CI 1.06-3.06, p = 0.028). In the multivariable model, high NLR retained significance for reduced RFS (HR 1.59, 95 % CI 1.1-2.28, p = 0.013) and OS (HR 1.91, 95 % CI 1.26-2.9, p = 0.002). Significantly more patients in the high NLR group were older at diagnosis, had mucinous adenocarcinoma, higher T stage, and advanced cancer stage. CONCLUSIONS: High preoperative NLR in this series was shown to be a negative independent prognostic factor in patients undergoing surgical resection for nonmetastatic CRC. The prognostic utility of this serum biomarker may help to guide use of adjuvant therapies and patient counselling.

Predictive Ability of Blood Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte and Platelet-to-Lymphocyte Ratios in Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors.

BACKGROUND: Recent findings have shown that the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) is prognostic for gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST). The platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) can predict outcome for several other disease sites. This study evaluates the prognostic utility of NLR and PLR for patients with GIST. METHODS: All patients who had undergone surgical resection for primary, localized GIST from 2001 to 2011 were identified from a prospectively maintained database. Recurrence-free survival (RFS) was calculated by the Kaplan-Meier method and compared by the log-rank test. Univariate Cox proportional hazard regression models were used to identify associations with outcome variables. RESULTS: The study included 93 patients. High PLR [≥245; hazard ratio (HR) 3.690; 95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.066-12.821; p = 0.039], neutrophils (HR 1.224; 95 % CI 1.017-1.473; p = 0.033), and platelets (HR 1.005; 95 % CI 1.001-1.009; p = 0.013) were associated with worse RFS. Patients with high PLR had 2- and 5-year RFS of 57 and 57 %, compared with 94 and 84 % for those with low PLR. High NLR (≥2.04) was not associated with reduced RFS (p = 0.214). Whereas more patients in the high PLR group had large tumors (p = 0.047), more patients in the high NLR group had high mitotic rates (p = 0.016) than in the low-ratio cohorts. Adjuvant therapy was given to 41.2 % of the patients with high PLR (p = 0.022). The patients with high PLR/NLR had worse nomogram-predicted RFS than the patients with low PLR/NLR. CONCLUSIONS: High PLR was associated with reduced RFS. The prognostic ability of PLR to predict recurrence suggests that it may play a role in risk-stratification schemes used to determine which patients will benefit from adjuvant therapy.

Preoperative endoscopy localization error rate in patients with colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Preoperative repeat endoscopy in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients is considered by many to be an integral component of surgical planning. Little is known, however, about the utility of re-endoscopy. METHODS: A retrospective review of 342 consecutive patients undergoing elective surgical resection for CRC from January 2008 to December 2011 was performed. Patients were included if the initial endoscopist was different than the operating surgeon. A localization error was recorded if the final tumor location identified during surgery was in a different anatomical segment than that identified by endoscopy. The Chi-squared test was used to compare categorical variables. An error rate with a 95% confidence interval was obtained using the exact binomial distribution. RESULTS: 298 patients were identified, 118 (39.6%) of whom also underwent a preoperative re-endoscopy by the operating surgeon or partner. Nineteen patients had incorrect tumor localization at initial endoscopy, equivalent to a 6.4% error rate (95% CI 3.88-9.78). In comparison, there were two localization errors on re-endoscopy, 1.69% (95% CI 0.21-6.00). Re-endoscopy was found to be protective against localization errors (P < 0.05), correcting 10 of the 12 errors made at the initial endoscopy. The sensitivity of re-endoscopy as a diagnostic tool to detect errors was 83% with a corresponding specificity of 100%. The overall accuracy of re-endoscopy in preventing endoscopic localization errors was 92% (95% CI 81-100). CONCLUSIONS: There is a small but important localization error rate in preoperative endoscopic evaluation of colorectal tumors. Re-endoscopy appears to be safe and may potentially identify and correct these errors and help with preoperative planning at the expense of delaying surgery. Further research is necessary to find ways to improve localization and identify which patients would benefit from re-endoscopy.

The accuracy of three predictive models in the evaluation of recurrence rates for gastrointestinal stromal tumors.

BACKGROUND: Treatment decisions for gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) are frequently guided by tumor characteristics. An accurate prediction of recurrence is important to determine the benefit from targeted therapy. Our goal was to compare the concordance of three validated risk stratification schemes with observed outcomes in patients undergoing resection for GISTs. METHODS: Patients who underwent surgery for GISTs from 2001 to 2011 at a tertiary centre were identified. Survival was evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit method. Cox proportional hazard models were used to obtain predicted recurrence for each system and concordance indices were calculated. RESULTS: Of 110 patients identified, 77 (70.0%) had surgery and 29 (26.4%) also received adjuvant therapy. The majority of patients had tumors that were very low (4.5%), low (32.7%), or intermediate (22.7%) in terms of malignant potential. R0 resection was achieved in 89.1% of cases. Observed 2-year and 5-year recurrence rates were significantly lower than those predicted by the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center nomogram (7.6% vs. 19.3% and 18.4% vs. 27.0%); however, it was the most favorable tool compared to the US National Institutes of Health (NIH)-consensus (P = 0.0017) and modified NIH-consensus (P < 0.001), with a concordance index of 0.811. CONCLUSION: Development of a novel predictive tool that includes additional prognostic factors may better stratify recurrence following resection for GIST.