Advertisement

Surgical Endoscopy

, Volume 31, Issue 3, pp 1083–1092 | Cite as

Characteristics of learning curve in minimally invasive ileal pouch-anal anastomosis in a single institution

  • Ahmet Rencuzogullari
  • Luca Stocchi
  • Meagan Costedio
  • Emre Gorgun
  • Hermann Kessler
  • Feza H. Remzi
Article

Abstract

Background

Previous work from our institution has characterized the learning curve for open ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA). The purpose of the present study was to assess the learning curve of minimally invasive IPAA.

Methods

Perioperative outcomes of 372 minimally invasive IPAA by 20 surgeons (10 high-volume vs. 10 low-volume surgeons) during 2002–2013, included in a prospectively maintained database, were assessed. Predicted outcome models were constructed using perioperative variables selected by stepwise logistic regression, using Akaike’s information criterion. Cumulative sums (CUSUM) of differences between observed and predicted outcomes were graphed over time to identify possible improvement patterns.

Results

Institutional pelvic sepsis and other pouch morbidity rates (hemorrhage, anastomotic separation, pouch failure, fistula) significantly decreased (18.2 vs. 7.0 %, CUSUM peak after 143 cases, p = 0.001; 18.4 vs. 5.3 %, CUSUM peak after 239 cases, respectively, p < 0.001). Institutional total proctocolectomy mean operative times significantly decreased (307 min vs. 253 min, CUSUM peak after 84 cases, p < 0.001), unlike completion proctectomy (p = 0.093) or conversion rates (10 vs. 5.4 %, p = 0.235). Similar learning curves were identified among high-volume surgeons but not among low-volume surgeons. Learning curves were identified in the two busiest individual surgeons for pelvic sepsis (peaks at 47 and 9 cases, p = 0.045 and p = 0.002) and in one surgeon for operative times (CUSUM peak after 16 and 13 cases for both total proctocolectomy and completion proctectomy (p < 0.001 and p = 0.006) but not for other pouch complications (peak at 49 and 41 cases, p = 0.199 and p = 0.094).

Conclusion

Pouch complications, particularly pelvic sepsis, are the most consistent and relevant learning curve end points in laparoscopic IPAA.

Keywords

Learning curve Laparoscopic colorectal surgery Ileal pouch-anal anastomosis Laparoscopic IPAA 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Disclosures

Drs. Ahmet Rencuzogullari, Luca Stocchi, Meagan Costedio, Emre Gorgun, Hermann Kessler, and Feza H. Remzi have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

References

  1. 1.
    Fazio VW, Kiran RP, Remzi FH, Coffey JC, Heneghan HM, Kirat HT, Manilich E, Shen B, Martin ST (2013) Ileal pouch anal anastomosis: analysis of outcome and quality of life in 3707 patients. Ann Surg 257(4):679–685CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tekkis PP, Fazio VW, Lavery IC, Remzi FH, Senagore AJ, Wu JS, Strong SA, Poloneicki JD, Hull TL, Church JM (2005) Evaluation of the learning curve in ileal pouch-anal anastomosis surgery. Ann Surg 241(2):262–268CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    El-Gazzaz GS, Kiran RP, Remzi FH, Hull TL, Geisler DP (2009) Outcomes for case-matched laparoscopically assisted versus open restorative proctocolectomy. Br J Surg 96(5):522–526CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Larson DW, Cima RR, Dozois EJ, Davies M, Piotrowicz K, Barnes SA, Wolff B, Pemberton J (2006) Safety, feasibility, and short-term outcomes of laparoscopic ileal-pouch-anal anastomosis: a single institutional case-matched experience. Ann Surg 243(5):667–670CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Causey MW, Stoddard D, Johnson EK, Maykel JA, Martin MJ, Rivadeneira D, Steele SR (2013) Laparoscopy impacts outcomes favorably following colectomy for ulcerative colitis: a critical analysis of the ACS-NSQIP database. Surg Endosc 27(2):603–609CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    McCarter FD, Luchette FA, Molloy M, Hurst JM, Davis K Jr, Johannigman JA, Frame SB, Fischer JE (2000) Institutional and individual learning curves for focused abdominal ultrasound for trauma: cumulative sum analysis. Ann Surg 231(5):689–700CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tekkis PP, Senagore AJ, Delaney CP, Fazio VW (2005) Evaluation of the learning curve in laparoscopic colorectal surgery: comparison of right-sided and left-sided resections. Ann Surg 242(1):83–91CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Akaike H (1998) Information theory and an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. In: Parzen E, Tanabe K, Kitagawa G (eds) Selected papers of Hirotugu Akaike. Springer, Berlin, pp 199–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bernstein CN, Fried M, Krabshuis JH, Cohen H, Eliakim R, Fedail S, Gearry R, Goh KL, Hamid S, Khan AG, LeMair AW, Malfertheiner Ouyang Q, Rey JF, Sood A, Steinwurz F, Thomsen OO, Thomson A, Watermeyer G (2010) World gastroenterology organization practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of IBD in 2010. Inflamm Bowel Dis 16(1):112–124CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Satsangi J, Silverberg MS, Vermeire S, Colombel JF (2006) The montreal classification of inflammatory bowel disease: controversies, consensus, and implications. Gut 55(6):749–753CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kiely JM, Fazio VW, Remzi FH, Shen B, Kiran RP (2012) Pelvic sepsis after IPAA adversely affects function of the pouch and quality of life. Dis Colon Rectum 55(4):387–392CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gu J, Stocchi L, Remzi FH, Kiran RP (2014) Total abdominal colectomy for severe ulcerative colitis: does the laparoscopic approach really have benefit? Surg Endosc 28(2):617–625CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Stocchi L (2010) Laparoscopic surgery for ulcerative colitis. Clin Colon Rectal Surg 23(4):248–258CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kiran RP, Kirat HT, Ozturk E, Geisler DP, Remzi FH (2010) Does the learning curve during laparoscopic colectomy adversely affect costs? Surg Endosc 24(11):2718–2722CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Maartense S, Dunker MS, Slors JF, Cuesta MA, Gouma DJ, van Deventer SJ, van Bodegraven AA, Bemelman WA (2004) Hand-assisted laparoscopic versus open restorative proctocolectomy with ileal pouch anal anastomosis: a randomized trial. Ann Surg 240(6):984–991 (discussion 991–2) CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ganschow P, Warth R, Hinz U, Büchler MW, Kadmon M (2014) Early postoperative complications after stapled vs handsewn restorative proctocolectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis in 148 patients with familial adenomatous polyposis coli: a matched-pair analysis. Colorectal Dis 16(2):116–122CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Remzi FH, Church JM, Bast J, Lavery IC, Strong SA, Hull TL, Harris GJ, Delaney CP, O’Riordain MG, McGannon EA, Fazio VW (2001) Mucosectomy vs stapled ileal pouch—anal anastomosis in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis. Dis Colon Rectum 44(11):1590–1596CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kirat HT, Remzi FH, Kiran RP, Fazio VW (2009) Comparison of outcomes after hand-sewn versus stapled ileal pouch-anal anastomosis in 3,109 patients. Surgery 146(4):723–730CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Silva-Velazco J, Stocchi L, Wu XR, Shen B, Remzi FH (2014) Twenty-year-old stapled pouches for ulcerative colitis without evidence of rectal cancer: implications for surveillance strategy? Dis Colon Rectum 57(11):1275–1281CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pendlimari R, Holubar SD, Dozois EJ, Larson DW, Pemberton JH, Cima RR (2012) Technical proficiency in hand-assisted laparoscopic colon and rectal surgery: determining how many cases are required to achieve mastery. Arch Surg 147(4):317–322CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bikhchandani J, Polites SF, Wagie AE, Habermann EB, Cima RR (2015) National trends of 3- versus 2-stage restorative proctocolectomy for chronic ulcerative colitis. Dis Colon Rectum 58(2):199–204CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dinçler S, Koller MT, Steurer J, Bachmann LM, Christen D, Buchmann P (2003) Multidimensional analysis of learning curves in laparoscopic sigmoid resection. Dis Colon Rectum 46(10):1371–1378CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Simons AJ, Anthone GJ, Ortega AE, Franklin M, Fleshman J, Geis WP, Beart RW Jr (1995) Laparoscopic-assisted colectomy learning curve. Dis Colon Rectum 38(6):600–603CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cima RR, Hassan I, Poola VP, Larson DW, Dozois EJ, Larson DR, O’Byrne MM, Huebner M (2010) Failure of institutionally derived predictive models of conversion in laparoscopic colorectal surgery to predict conversion outcomes in an independent data set of 998 laparoscopic colorectal procedures. Ann Surg 251(4):652–658CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Trincado MT, Gonzalez JS, Antona FB, Esteban MLM, García LC, Gonzalez JC, Iscar AM, Alvarez JIB, del Olmo JCM (2014) How to reduce the laparoscopic colorectal learning curve. JSLS. doi: 10.4293/JSLS.2014.00321 Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Miskovic D, Wyles SM, Ni M, Darzi AW, Hanna GB (2010) Systematic review on mentoring and simulation in laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Ann Surg 252(6):943–951CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bonjer HJ, Deijen CL, Abis GA, Cuesta MA, van der Pas MH, de Lange-de Klerk ES, Lacy AM, Bemelman WA, Andersson J, Angenete E, Rosenberg J, Fuerst A, Haglind E (2015) A randomized trial of laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer. N Engl J Med 372(14):1324–1332CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Nussbaum DP, Speicher PJ, Ganapathi AM, Englum BR, Keenan JE, Mantyh CR, Migaly J (2014) Laparoscopic versus open low anterior resection for rectal cancer: results from the national cancer data base. J Gastrointest Surg 19(1):124–132CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    McCulloch P, Taylor I, Sasako M, Lovett B, Griffin D (2002) Randomised trials in surgery: problems and possible solutions. BMJ 324(7351):1448–1451CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sutton JM, Wima K, Wilson GC, Davis BR, Shah SA, Abbott DE, Rafferty JF, Paquette IM (2014) Factors associated with 30-day readmission after restorative proctocolectomy with IPAA: a national study. Dis Colon Rectum 57(12):1371–1378CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ahmet Rencuzogullari
    • 1
  • Luca Stocchi
    • 1
  • Meagan Costedio
    • 1
  • Emre Gorgun
    • 1
  • Hermann Kessler
    • 1
  • Feza H. Remzi
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Colorectal Surgery, Digestive Disease Institute, Cleveland ClinicCleveland Clinic FoundationClevelandUSA

Personalised recommendations