Premium
Impact of surgeon laparoscopic training and case volume of laparoscopic surgery on conversion during elective laparoscopic colorectal surgery
Author(s) -
Massarotti H.,
Rodrigues F.,
O'Rourke C.,
Chadi S. A.,
Wexner S.
Publication year - 2017
Publication title -
colorectal disease
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.029
H-Index - 89
eISSN - 1463-1318
pISSN - 1462-8910
DOI - 10.1111/codi.13402
Subject(s) - medicine , laparoscopic surgery , colorectal surgery , laparoscopy , surgery , body mass index , anastomosis , open surgery , general surgery , abdominal surgery
Aim The study aimed to determine whether laparoscopic volume and type of training influence conversion during elective laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Method An Institutional Review Board‐approved prospective database was reviewed for patients who underwent colorectal resection, performed by six colorectal surgeons, for all diagnoses from 2009 to 2014. Surgeons were designated as laparoscopic‐ or open‐trained based on formal laparoscopic colorectal surgery training, and were classified as low laparoscopic volume ( LLV ) (i.e. had performed < 100 laparoscopic procedures) or high laparoscopic volume ( HLV ) (i.e. had performed ≥ 100 laparoscopic procedures). Technique was laparoscopic, open or converted (pre‐emptive or reactive). Conversion was compared among three groups: LLV , laparoscopic trained (group A); LLV , open trained (group B); and HLV , open trained (group C). Results In total, 159/567 procedures were open and 408 laparoscopic procedures were attempted. Of the 408 laparoscopic procedures, 73 were converted. Among the 567 patients [mean age: 56 ± 17 years (44% male)], the overall conversion rate was 13% (73/567), including 75% pre‐emptive and 25% reactive. Conversion rates for groups A, B and C were 17.9%, 42.6% and 14.3%, respectively. Significantly higher conversion was seen in group B compared with group C ( P = 0.01), but not between group A and group C ( P = 0.85) or between group B and group A ( P = 0.11). Converted patients were older ( P < 0.001), with lower rates of proctectomy ( P = 0.007), higher rates of anastomosis ( P < 0.001) and higher body mass index ( BMI ) ( P < 0.001). After adjusting for patient and surgeon factors, training type was not associated with conversion ( P = 0.15). Compared with successful laparoscopy, converted patients had a significantly higher incidence of ileus ( P < 0.001), length of stay ( P = 0.002), time to flatus ( OR = 3.21, P < 0.001) and time to solids ( P < 0.001). Converted patients experienced increased morbidity. Conclusion Training is not associated with conversion. Rather, HLV surgeons, regardless of training, convert less frequently than do LLV surgeons.