Skip to main content
Hauptrubriken
CME Facharzt-Training Webinare Zeitschriften Bücher e.Medpedia Podcast
Service
Jobbörse Info & Hilfe
Fachgebiete
Anästhesiologie Allgemeinmedizin Arbeitsmedizin Augenheilkunde Chirurgie Dermatologie Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe HNO Innere Medizin Kardiologie Neurologie Onkologie und Hämatologie Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie Pädiatrie Pathologie Psychiatrie Radiologie Rechtsmedizin Urologie Zahnmedizin
Themen
Klimawandel und Gesundheit Neues aus dem Markt COVID-19 Praxis und Beruf Seltene Erkrankungen GOÄ & EBM Panorama
Sammlungen
Kasuistiken Algorithmen & Infografiken Blickdiagnosen Arthropedia FlapFinder (für Dermatochirurgen) Videos Kongressberichterstattung Medizin für Apothekerinnen und Apotheker Für Ärztinnen und Ärzte in Weiterbildung Für Medizinstudierende
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
World Journal of Surgery
Erschienen in: World Journal of Surgery 9/2014

01.09.2014

Assessing Surgical Quality: Comparison of General and Procedure-Specific Morbidity Estimation Models for the Risk Adjustment of Pancreaticoduodenectomy Outcomes

verfasst von: C. Ansorge, P. Lindström, L. Strömmer, J. Blomberg, L. Lundell, Å. Andrén-Sandberg, M. Del Chiaro, R. Segersvärd

Erschienen in: World Journal of Surgery | Ausgabe 9/2014

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Introduction

The use of outcomes to evaluate surgical quality implies the need for detailed risk adjustment. The physiological and operative severity score for the enumeration of mortality and morbidity (POSSUM) is a generally applicable risk adjustment model suitable for pancreatic surgery. A pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD)-specific intraoperative pancreatic risk assessment (IPRA) estimates the risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) and associated morbidity based on factors that are not incorporated into POSSUM.

Objective

The aim of the study was to compare the risk estimations of POSSUM and IPRA in patients undergoing PD.

Methods

An observational single-center cohort study was conducted including 195 patients undergoing PD in 2008–2010. POSSUM and IPRA data were recorded prospectively. Incidence and severity of postoperative morbidity was recorded according to established definitions. The cohort was grouped by POSSUM and IPRA risk groups. The estimated and observed outcomes and morbidity profiles of POSSUM and IPRA were scrutinized.

Results

POSSUM-estimated risk (62 %) corresponded with observed total morbidity (65 %). Severe morbidity was 17 % and in-hospital-mortality 3.1 %. Individual and grouped POSSUM risk estimates did not reveal associations with incidence (p = 0.637) or severity (p = 0.321) of total morbidity or POPF. The IPRA model identified patients with high POPF risk (p < 0.001), but was even associated with incidence (p < 0.001) and severity (p < 0.001) of total morbidity.

Conclusion

The risk factors defined by a PD-specific model were significantly stronger predictive indicators for the incidence and severity of postoperative morbidity than the factors incorporated in POSSUM. If available, reliable procedure-specific risk factors should be utilized in the risk adjustment of surgical outcomes. For pancreatic surgery, generally applicable tools such as POSSUM still have to prove their relevance.
Literatur
1.
Tewari M, Hazrah P, Kumar V et al (2010) Options of restorative pancreaticoenteric anastomosis following pancreaticoduodenectomy: a review. Surg Oncol 19:17–26PubMedCrossRef
2.
Gooiker GA, van Gijn W, Wouters MW et al (2011) Systematic review and meta-analysis of the volume-outcome relationship in pancreatic surgery. Br J Surg 98:485–494PubMedCrossRef
3.
Teh SH, Diggs BS, Deveney CW et al (2009) Patient and hospital characteristics on the variance of perioperative outcomes for pancreatic resection in the United States: a plea for outcome-based and not volume-based referral guidelines. Arch Surg 144:713–721PubMedCrossRef
4.
Eppsteiner RW, Csikesz NG, McPhee JT et al (2009) Surgeon volume impacts hospital mortality for pancreatic resection. Ann Surg 249:635–640PubMedCrossRef
5.
6.
Birkmeyer JD, Finlayson SR, Tosteson AN et al (1999) Effect of hospital volume on in-hospital mortality with pancreaticoduodenectomy. Surgery 125:250–256PubMedCrossRef
7.
Topal B, Van de Sande S, Fieuws S et al (2007) Effect of centralization of pancreaticoduodenectomy on nationwide hospital mortality and length of stay. Br J Surg 94:1377–1381PubMedCrossRef
8.
Lemmens VE, Bosscha K, van der Schelling G et al (2011) Improving outcome for patients with pancreatic cancer through centralization. Br J Surg 98:1455–1462PubMedCrossRef
9.
de Wilde RF, Besselink MG, van der Tweel I et al (2012) Impact of nationwide centralization of pancreaticoduodenectomy on hospital mortality. Br J Surg 99:404–410PubMedCrossRef
10.
11.
Gordon TA, Bowman HM, Tielsch JM et al (1998) Statewide regionalization of pancreaticoduodenectomy and its effect on in-hospital mortality. Ann Surg 228:71–78PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
12.
Ramacciato G, Mercantini P, Petrucciani N et al (2011) Risk factors of pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a collective review. Am Surg 77:257–269PubMed
13.
Dimick JB, Pronovost PJ, Cowan JA Jr et al (2003) Variation in postoperative complication rates after high-risk surgery in the United States. Surgery 134:534–540 discussion 540–531PubMedCrossRef
14.
Allareddy V, Ward MM, Konety BR (2010) Effect of meeting Leapfrog volume thresholds on complication rates following complex surgical procedures. Ann Surg 251:377–383PubMedCrossRef
15.
Ghaferi AA, Birkmeyer JD, Dimick JB (2009) Variation in hospital mortality associated with inpatient surgery. N Engl J Med 361:1368–1375PubMedCrossRef
16.
Silber JH, Rosenbaum PR, Williams SV et al (1997) The relationship between choice of outcome measure and hospital rank in general surgical procedures: implications for quality assessment. Int J Qual Health Care 9:193–200PubMed
17.
Ghaferi AA, Birkmeyer JD, Dimick JB (2011) Hospital volume and failure to rescue with high-risk surgery. Med Care 49:1076–1081PubMedCrossRef
18.
Birkmeyer JD, Dimick JB (2004) Potential benefits of the new Leapfrog standards: effect of process and outcomes measures. Surgery 135:569–575PubMedCrossRef
19.
Birkmeyer JD, Dimick JB (2009) Understanding and reducing variation in surgical mortality. Ann Rev Med 60:405–415PubMedCrossRef
20.
Birkmeyer NJ, Birkmeyer JD (2006) Strategies for improving surgical quality-should payers reward excellence or effort? N Engl J Med 354:864–870PubMedCrossRef
21.
Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL et al (1987) A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis 40:373–383PubMedCrossRef
22.
Elixhauser A, Steiner C, Harris DR et al (1998) Comorbidity measures for use with administrative data. Med Care 36:8–27PubMedCrossRef
23.
Greenblatt DY, Kelly KJ, Rajamanickam V et al (2011) Preoperative factors predict perioperative morbidity and mortality after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Ann Surg Oncol 18:2126–2135PubMedCrossRef
24.
Parikh P, Shiloach M, Cohen ME et al (2010) Pancreatectomy risk calculator: an ACS-NSQIP resource. HPB (Oxford) 12:488–497CrossRef
25.
Venkat R, Puhan MA, Schulick RD et al (2011) Predicting the risk of perioperative mortality in patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy: a novel scoring system. Arch Surg 146:1277–1284PubMedCrossRef
26.
27.
Grendar J, Shaheen AA, Myers RP et al (2012) Predicting in-hospital mortality in patients undergoing complex gastrointestinal surgery: determining the optimal risk adjustment method. Arch Surg 147:126–135PubMedCrossRef
28.
Khan AW, Shah SR, Agarwal AK et al (2003) Evaluation of the POSSUM scoring system for comparative audit in pancreatic surgery. Dig Surg 20:539–545PubMedCrossRef
29.
Knight BC, Kausar A, Manu M et al (2010) Evaluation of surgical outcome scores according to ISGPS definitions in patients undergoing pancreatic resection. Dig Surg 27:367–374PubMedCrossRef
30.
Pratt W, Joseph S, Callery MP et al (2008) POSSUM accurately predicts morbidity for pancreatic resection. Surgery 143:8–19PubMedCrossRef
31.
Zhang Y, Fu L, Zhang ZD et al (2009) Evaluation of POSSUM in predicting post-operative morbidity in patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy. J Int Med Res 37:1859–1867PubMedCrossRef
32.
Tamijmarane A, Bhati CS, Mirza DF et al (2008) Application of Portsmouth modification of physiological and operative severity scoring system for enumeration of morbidity and mortality (P-POSSUM) in pancreatic surgery. World J Surg Oncol 6:39PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
33.
34.
Copeland GP, Jones D, Walters M (1991) POSSUM: a scoring system for surgical audit. Br J Surg 78:355–360PubMedCrossRef
35.
Whiteley MS, Prytherch DR, Higgins B et al (1996) An evaluation of the POSSUM surgical scoring system. Br J Surg 83:812–815PubMedCrossRef
36.
Prytherch DR, Whiteley MS, Higgins B et al (1998) POSSUM and Portsmouth POSSUM for predicting mortality. Physiological and Operative Severity Score for the enUmeration of Mortality and morbidity. Br J Surg 85:1217–1220PubMedCrossRef
37.
Dutta S, Al-Mrabt NM, Fullarton GM et al (2011) A comparison of POSSUM and GPS models in the prediction of post-operative outcome in patients undergoing oesophago-gastric cancer resection. Ann Surg Oncol 18:2808–2817PubMedCrossRef
38.
Lam CM, Fan ST, Yuen AW et al (2004) Validation of POSSUM scoring systems for audit of major hepatectomy. Br J Surg 91:450–454PubMedCrossRef
39.
Neary WD, Crow P, Foy C et al (2003) Comparison of POSSUM scoring and the Hardman Index in selection of patients for repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm. Br J Surg 90:421–425PubMedCrossRef
40.
Tekkis PP, McCulloch P, Poloniecki JD et al (2004) Risk-adjusted prediction of operative mortality in oesophagogastric surgery with O-POSSUM. Br J Surg 91:288–295PubMedCrossRef
41.
42.
Bassi C, Dervenis C, Butturini G et al (2005) Postoperative pancreatic fistula: an international study group (ISGPF) definition. Surgery 138:8–13PubMedCrossRef
43.
Ansorge C, Strommer L, Andren-Sandberg A et al (2012) Structured intraoperative assessment of pancreatic gland characteristics in predicting complications after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Br J Surg 99:1076–1082PubMedCrossRef
44.
Pedrazzoli S, Beger HG, Obertop H et al (1999) A surgical and pathological based classification of resective treatment of pancreatic cancer. Summary of an international workshop on surgical procedures in pancreatic cancer. Dig Surg 16:337–345PubMedCrossRef
45.
Wente MN, Bassi C, Dervenis C et al (2007) Delayed gastric emptying (DGE) after pancreatic surgery: a suggested definition by the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS). Surgery 142:761–768PubMedCrossRef
46.
Wente MN, Veit JA, Bassi C et al (2007) Postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH): an International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) definition. Surgery 142:20–25PubMedCrossRef
47.
Bone RC, Balk RA, Cerra FB et al (1992) Definitions for sepsis and organ failure and guidelines for the use of innovative therapies in sepsis. The ACCP/SCCM Consensus Conference Committee. American College of Chest Physicians/Society of Critical Care Medicine. Chest 101:1644–1655PubMedCrossRef
48.
Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240:205–213PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
49.
Ansorge C, Nordin JZ, Lundell L et al (2014) Diagnostic value of abdominal drainage in individual risk assessment of pancreatic fistula following pancreaticoduodenectomy. Br J Surg 101:100–108PubMedCrossRef
50.
51.
Brooks JR, Culebras JM (1976) Cancer of the pancreas. Palliative operation, Whipple procedure, or total pancreatectomy? Am J Surg 131:516–520PubMedCrossRef
52.
Choe YM, Lee KY, Oh CA et al (2008) Risk factors affecting pancreatic fistulas after pancreaticoduodenectomy. World J Gastroenterol 14:6970–6974PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
53.
Ho CK, Kleeff J, Friess H et al (2005) Complications of pancreatic surgery HPB: the official journal of the International Hepato Pancreato Biliary Association 2005(7):99–108
54.
Crippa S, Salvia R, Falconi M et al (2007) Anastomotic leakage in pancreatic surgery. HPB (Oxford) 9:8–15CrossRef
55.
DeOliveira ML, Winter JM, Schafer M et al (2006) Assessment of complications after pancreatic surgery: a novel grading system applied to 633 patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy. Ann Surg 244:931–937 discussion 937–939PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
56.
Lee SE, Yang SH, Jang JY et al (2007) Pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a comparison between the two pancreaticojejunostomy methods for approximating the pancreatic parenchyma to the jejunal seromuscular layer: interrupted vs continuous stitches. World J Gastroenterol 13:5351–5356PubMed
57.
Liang TB, Bai XL, Zheng SS (2007) Pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy: diagnosed according to International Study Group Pancreatic Fistula (ISGPF) definition. Pancreatology 7:325–331PubMedCrossRef
58.
Lin JW, Cameron JL, Yeo CJ et al (2004) Risk factors and outcomes in postpancreaticoduodenectomy pancreaticocutaneous fistula. J Gastrointest Surg 8:951–959PubMedCrossRef
59.
Okabayashi T, Kobayashi M, Nishimori I et al (2007) Risk factors, predictors and prevention of pancreatic fistula formation after pancreatoduodenectomy. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg 14:557–563PubMedCrossRef
60.
Kamoda Y, Fujino Y, Matsumoto I et al (2008) Usefulness of performing a pancreaticojejunostomy with an internal stent after a pancreatoduodenectomy. Surg Today 38:524–528PubMedCrossRef
61.
Poon RT, Fan ST, Lo CM et al (2007) External drainage of pancreatic duct with a stent to reduce leakage rate of pancreaticojejunostomy after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a prospective randomized trial. Ann Surg 246:425–433 discussion 433–425PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
62.
Yang SH, Dou KF, Sharma N et al (2011) The methods of reconstruction of pancreatic digestive continuity after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. World J Surg 35:2290–2297. doi:10.​1007/​s00268-011-1159-7 PubMedCrossRef
63.
de Castro SM, Busch OR, van Gulik TM et al (2005) Incidence and management of pancreatic leakage after pancreatoduodenectomy. Br J Surg 92:1117–1123PubMedCrossRef
64.
Hamanaka Y, Nishihara K, Hamasaki T et al (1996) Pancreatic juice output after pancreatoduodenectomy in relation to pancreatic consistency, duct size, and leakage. Surgery 119:281–287PubMedCrossRef
65.
Murakami Y, Uemura K, Hayasidani Y et al (2008) A soft pancreatic remnant is associated with increased drain fluid pancreatic amylase and serum CRP levels following pancreatoduodenectomy. J Gastrointest Surg 12:51–56PubMedCrossRef
66.
67.
Laaninen M, Blauer M, Vasama K et al (2012) The risk for immediate postoperative complications after pancreaticoduodenectomy is increased by high frequency of acinar cells and decreased by prevalent fibrosis of the cut edge of pancreas. Pancreas 41:957–961PubMedCrossRef
68.
Braga M, Capretti G, Pecorelli N et al (2011) A prognostic score to predict major complications after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Ann Surg 254:702–707 discussion 707–708PubMedCrossRef
69.
Wellner UF, Kayser G, Lapshyn H et al (2010) A simple scoring system based on clinical factors related to pancreatic texture predicts postoperative pancreatic fistula preoperatively. HPB (Oxford) 12:696–702CrossRef
70.
Callery MP, Pratt WB, Kent TS et al (2013) A prospectively validated clinical risk score accurately predicts pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy. J Am Coll Surg 216:1–14PubMedCrossRef
71.
Wang H, Chen T, Wang H et al (2013) A systematic review of the Physiological and Operative Severity Score for the enUmeration of Mortality and morbidity and its Portsmouth modification as predictors of post-operative morbidity and mortality in patients undergoing pancreatic surgery. Am J Surg 205(4):466–472PubMedCrossRef
72.
73.
Munro J, Booth A, Nicholl J (1997) Routine preoperative testing: a systematic review of the evidence. Health Technol Assess 1:i–iv 1–62PubMed
74.
Casadei B, Abuzeid H (2005) Is there a strong rationale for deferring elective surgery in patients with poorly controlled hypertension? J Hypertens 23:19–22PubMedCrossRef
75.
Brooks-Brunn JA (1997) Predictors of postoperative pulmonary complications following abdominal surgery. Chest 111:564–571PubMedCrossRef
76.
Archer RP, Jacobson JM (1993) Are critical items “critical” for the MMPI-A. J Pers Assess 61:547–556PubMedCrossRef
77.
78.
Goldwasser P, Feldman J (1997) Association of serum albumin and mortality risk. J Clin Epidemiol 50:693–703PubMedCrossRef
79.
Simunovic M, Urbach D, Major D et al (2010) Assessing the volume-outcome hypothesis and region-level quality improvement interventions: pancreas cancer surgery in two Canadian Provinces. Ann Surg Oncol 17:2537–2544PubMedCrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Assessing Surgical Quality: Comparison of General and Procedure-Specific Morbidity Estimation Models for the Risk Adjustment of Pancreaticoduodenectomy Outcomes
verfasst von
C. Ansorge
P. Lindström
L. Strömmer
J. Blomberg
L. Lundell
Å. Andrén-Sandberg
M. Del Chiaro
R. Segersvärd
Publikationsdatum
01.09.2014
Verlag
Springer US
Erschienen in
World Journal of Surgery / Ausgabe 9/2014
Print ISSN: 0364-2313
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-2323
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-014-2554-7

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 9/2014

World Journal of Surgery 9/2014 Zur Ausgabe

BriefCommunication

Hepatic Trisectionectomy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Using the Glisson Pedicle Method Combined with Anterior Approach

OriginalPaper

Inter-Rater Reliability of the PIPES Tool: Validation of a Surgical Capacity Index for Use in Resource-Limited Settings

OriginalPaper

Perioperative Care with Fast-Track Management in Patients Undergoing Pancreaticoduodenectomy

OriginalPaper

High Pre-Operative Urinary Norepinephrine is an Independent Determinant of Peri-Operative Hemodynamic Instability in Unilateral Pheochromocytoma/Paraganglioma Removal

OriginalPaper

Long-Term Quality of Life after Ivor Lewis Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer

OriginalPaper

Audit on Preoperative Fasting of Elective Surgical Patients in an African Academic Medical Center

Neu im Fachgebiet Chirurgie

Wie erfolgreich ist eine Re-Ablation nach Rezidiv?

23.04.2024 Ablationstherapie Nachrichten

Nach der Katheterablation von Vorhofflimmern kommt es bei etwa einem Drittel der Patienten zu Rezidiven, meist binnen eines Jahres. Wie sich spätere Rückfälle auf die Erfolgschancen einer erneuten Ablation auswirken, haben Schweizer Kardiologen erforscht.

Hinter dieser Appendizitis steckte ein Erreger

23.04.2024 Appendizitis Nachrichten

Schmerzen im Unterbauch, aber sonst nicht viel, was auf eine Appendizitis hindeutete: Ein junger Mann hatte Glück, dass trotzdem eine Laparoskopie mit Appendektomie durchgeführt und der Wurmfortsatz histologisch untersucht wurde.

Mehr Schaden als Nutzen durch präoperatives Aussetzen von GLP-1-Agonisten?

23.04.2024 Operationsvorbereitung Nachrichten

Derzeit wird empfohlen, eine Therapie mit GLP-1-Rezeptoragonisten präoperativ zu unterbrechen. Eine neue Studie nährt jedoch Zweifel an der Notwendigkeit der Maßnahme.

Ureterstriktur: Innovative OP-Technik bewährt sich

19.04.2024 EAU 2024 Kongressbericht

Die Ureterstriktur ist eine relativ seltene Komplikation, trotzdem bedarf sie einer differenzierten Versorgung. In komplexen Fällen wird dies durch die roboterassistierte OP-Technik gewährleistet. Erste Resultate ermutigen.

Update Chirurgie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Aktuelle BDC Leitlinien-Webinare

S3-Leitlinie „Diagnostik und Therapie des Karpaltunnelsyndroms“

Karpaltunnelsyndrom BDC Leitlinien Webinare
CME: 2 Punkte

Das Karpaltunnelsyndrom ist die häufigste Kompressionsneuropathie peripherer Nerven. Obwohl die Anamnese mit dem nächtlichen Einschlafen der Hand (Brachialgia parästhetica nocturna) sehr typisch ist, ist eine klinisch-neurologische Untersuchung und Elektroneurografie in manchen Fällen auch eine Neurosonografie erforderlich. Im Anfangsstadium sind konservative Maßnahmen (Handgelenksschiene, Ergotherapie) empfehlenswert. Bei nicht Ansprechen der konservativen Therapie oder Auftreten von neurologischen Ausfällen ist eine Dekompression des N. medianus am Karpaltunnel indiziert.

Prof. Dr. med. Gregor Antoniadis
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.

S2e-Leitlinie „Distale Radiusfraktur“

Radiusfraktur BDC Leitlinien Webinare
CME: 2 Punkte

Das Webinar beschäftigt sich mit Fragen und Antworten zu Diagnostik und Klassifikation sowie Möglichkeiten des Ausschlusses von Zusatzverletzungen. Die Referenten erläutern, welche Frakturen konservativ behandelt werden können und wie. Das Webinar beantwortet die Frage nach aktuellen operativen Therapiekonzepten: Welcher Zugang, welches Osteosynthesematerial? Auf was muss bei der Nachbehandlung der distalen Radiusfraktur geachtet werden?

PD Dr. med. Oliver Pieske
Dr. med. Benjamin Meyknecht
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.

S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“

Appendizitis BDC Leitlinien Webinare
CME: 2 Punkte

Inhalte des Webinars zur S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“ sind die Darstellung des Projektes und des Erstellungswegs zur S1-Leitlinie, die Erläuterung der klinischen Relevanz der Klassifikation EAES 2015, die wissenschaftliche Begründung der wichtigsten Empfehlungen und die Darstellung stadiengerechter Therapieoptionen.

Dr. med. Mihailo Andric
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.
Bildnachweise