Skip to main content
Log in

Enthusiasm, Opinion Leaders, Comparative Advantage, and the Uptake Of Laparoscopic Resection For Colorectal Cancer Liver Metastases in Ontario, Canada: A Population-Based Cohort Study

  • Hepatobiliary Tumors
  • Published:
Annals of Surgical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Numerous factors likely influence adoption of surgical innovations in large regions. We considered the role of comparative advantage, surgeon enthusiasm, and opinion leaders on uptake of minimally invasive liver resection (MILR) for colorectal cancer (CRC) metastases in Ontario.

Methods

We used administrative data for patients undergoing liver resection for CRC metastases from years 2006–2015. Fourteen regions were divided into three groups based on overall rate of MILR for CRC metastases. Outcomes included postoperative complications, length of hospital stay (LOS), operative mortality, and 1-year survival. We evaluated uptake of MILR among groups and within groups between opinion leader and nonopinion leader surgeons.

Results

There were 2675 patients in the low-rate (n = 937), medium-rate (n = 919), and high-rate (n = 819) groups. In these same groups, the number of opinion leader surgeons was six, five, and six. Patient outcomes were similar among groups, except in the low-rate group LOS was 1 day greater (7 vs. 6 and 6; p = 0.017). The rate of MILR for CRC metastases did not change significantly among opinion leaders in any group. This rate among nonopinion leader surgeons was steady and low in the low-rate group (1.7–8.0%, p = 0.80) and increased in the mid-rate group (2.4–31.8%, p = 0.0026) and in the high-rate group (7.7–40.9%, p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Greater use of MILR was associated with a 1-day shorter LOS. Relative enthusiasm for MILR for CRC metastases among a small number of opinion leader surgeons likely facilitated or dampened uptake of this complex innovation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Rogers E. Diffusion of innovations, 3rd edn. The Free Press; 1983.

  2. Wennberg J, McPherson K, Goodman D. Small area analysis and the challenge of practice variation. In: Johnson A, Stukel T (eds) Health Services Research Book Series. Springer, Boston; 2015;1–25.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Diehr P, Cain K, Ye Z, Abdul-Salam F. Small variation analysis: methods for comparing several diagnostic related groups. Med Care. 1993;31(5):YS45–53.

  4. Chassin MR. Explaining geographic variations: the enthusiasm hypothesis. Med Care. 1993;31(5):YS37–44.

  5. Hall SF, Irish JC, Griffiths RJ, Whitehead M. Explaining the variation in surgical practice for differentiated thyroid cancer in Ontario, Canada. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2019;145(10):949–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Flodgren G, O’Brien MA, Parmelli E, Grimshaw JM. Local opinion leaders: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019;6:Cd000125.

  7. Greenhalgh T, Robert G, Macfarlane F, Bate P, Kyriakidou O. Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: systematic review and recommendations. Millbank Q. 2004;82(4):581–629.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Antoniou SA, Antoniou GA, Antoniou AI, Granderath FA. Past, present, and future of minimally invasive abdominal surgery. J Soc Laparoend. 2015;19(3):1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Urbach DR, Stukel TA. Rate of elective cholecystectomy and the incidence of severe gallstone disease. Can Med Assoc J. 2005;172(8):1015–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Escarce JJ, Bloom BS, Hillman AL, Shea JA. Diffusion of laparoscopic cholecystectomy among general surgeons in the United States. Med Care. 1995;33(3):256–71.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Simunovic M, Baxter NN, Sutradhar R, Liu N, Cadeddu M, Urbach D. Uptake and patient outcomes of laparoscopic colon and rectal cancer surgery in a publicly funded system and following financial incentives. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20(12):3740–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Hoogerboord M, Ellsmere J, Caycedo-Marulanda A, et al. Laparoscopic colectomy: trends in implementation in Canada and globally. Can J Surg. 2019;62(2):139–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Nassour I, Patricio PM. Minimally invasive liver surgery for hepatic colorectal metastases. Curr Colorectal Cancer Rep. 2015;2(2):147–85.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Wayand W, Woisetschläger R. Laparoscopic resection of liver metastasis. Chirurg. 1993;64(3):195–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Ontario Cancer Data Linkage Project (cd-link) Institute for clinical evaluative sciences (ICES); 2018. https://www.ices.on.ca/DAS/Public-Sector/cd-link.

  16. Robles SC, Marrett LD, Clarke EA, Risch HA. An application of capture-recapture methods to the estimation of completeness of cancer registration. J Clin Epidemiol. 1988;41(5):495–501.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Clarke EA, Marrett LD, Kreiger N. Cancer registration in Ontario: a computer approach. IARC Sci. Publ. 1991;95:246–57.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Data Quality Documentation, Discharge Abstract Database: current year information 2016–2017. In: Canadian Institute for Health Information 2016;1–18.

  19. Chan B. Supply of physicians’ services in Ontario. Hosp Q. 1999;3(2):17.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40(5):373–83.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Wilkins R. Use of postal codes and addresses in the analysis of health data. Health Rep. 1993;5(2):157–77.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Postal Code OM Conversion File (PCCF), Reference Guide. In: Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 2017;92–154–G.

  23. Valente TW, Pumpuang P. Identifying opinion leaders to promote behavior change. Health Educ Behav. 2007;34(6):881–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004;240(2):205–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Fretland ÅA, Dagenborg VJ, Bjørnelv GMW, et al. Laparoscopic versus open resection for colorectal liver metastases the OSLO-COMET randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg. 2017;267(2):199–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Waltho D, Davidge K, Eskicioglu C, for the Evidence-Based Surgery Working Group (2019) Expertise-Based Randomized Controlled Trials. In: Thoma A, Sprague S, Voineskos S, Goldsmith C (eds) Evidence-based surgery. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05120-4_14.

Download references

Acknowledgment

This study was supported through provision of data by the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES), Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI), Cancer Care Ontario (CCO).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marko Simunovic MD.

Ethics declarations

Disclosure

The authors have no conflicts of interest to report.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wang, J., Serrano, P.E., Griffiths, C. et al. Enthusiasm, Opinion Leaders, Comparative Advantage, and the Uptake Of Laparoscopic Resection For Colorectal Cancer Liver Metastases in Ontario, Canada: A Population-Based Cohort Study. Ann Surg Oncol 28, 2685–2691 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-020-09203-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-020-09203-0

Navigation