Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
World Journal of Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Tewari M, Hazrah P, Kumar V et al (2010) Options of restorative pancreaticoenteric anastomosis following pancreaticoduodenectomy: a review. Surg Oncol 19:17–26

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 98:485–494

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 144:713–721

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Eppsteiner RW, Csikesz NG, McPhee JT et al (2009) Surgeon volume impacts hospital mortality for pancreatic resection. Ann Surg 249:635–640

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Birkmeyer JD, Sun Y, Wong SL et al (2007) Hospital volume and late survival after cancer surgery. Ann Surg 245:777–783

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Birkmeyer JD, Finlayson SR, Tosteson AN et al (1999) Effect of hospital volume on in-hospital mortality with pancreaticoduodenectomy. Surgery 125:250–256

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 94:1377–1381

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Lemmens VE, Bosscha K, van der Schelling G et al (2011) Improving outcome for patients with pancreatic cancer through centralization. Br J Surg 98:1455–1462

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 99:404–410

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. McPhee JT, Hill JS, Whalen GF et al (2007) Perioperative mortality for pancreatectomy: a national perspective. Ann Surg 246:246–253

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Gordon TA, Bowman HM, Tielsch JM et al (1998) Statewide regionalization of pancreaticoduodenectomy and its effect on in-hospital mortality. Ann Surg 228:71–78

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Ramacciato G, Mercantini P, Petrucciani N et al (2011) Risk factors of pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a collective review. Am Surg 77:257–269

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 540–531

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Allareddy V, Ward MM, Konety BR (2010) Effect of meeting Leapfrog volume thresholds on complication rates following complex surgical procedures. Ann Surg 251:377–383

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Ghaferi AA, Birkmeyer JD, Dimick JB (2009) Variation in hospital mortality associated with inpatient surgery. N Engl J Med 361:1368–1375

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 9:193–200

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Ghaferi AA, Birkmeyer JD, Dimick JB (2011) Hospital volume and failure to rescue with high-risk surgery. Med Care 49:1076–1081

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Birkmeyer JD, Dimick JB (2004) Potential benefits of the new Leapfrog standards: effect of process and outcomes measures. Surgery 135:569–575

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Birkmeyer JD, Dimick JB (2009) Understanding and reducing variation in surgical mortality. Ann Rev Med 60:405–415

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Birkmeyer NJ, Birkmeyer JD (2006) Strategies for improving surgical quality-should payers reward excellence or effort? N Engl J Med 354:864–870

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 40:373–383

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Elixhauser A, Steiner C, Harris DR et al (1998) Comorbidity measures for use with administrative data. Med Care 36:8–27

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Greenblatt DY, Kelly KJ, Rajamanickam V et al (2011) Preoperative factors predict perioperative morbidity and mortality after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Ann Surg Oncol 18:2126–2135

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Parikh P, Shiloach M, Cohen ME et al (2010) Pancreatectomy risk calculator: an ACS-NSQIP resource. HPB (Oxford) 12:488–497

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 146:1277–1284

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. de Castro SM, Houwert JT, Lagarde SM et al (2009) Evaluation of POSSUM for patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy. World J Surg 33:1481–1487. doi:10.1007/s00268-009-0037-z

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 147:126–135

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Khan AW, Shah SR, Agarwal AK et al (2003) Evaluation of the POSSUM scoring system for comparative audit in pancreatic surgery. Dig Surg 20:539–545

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 27:367–374

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Pratt W, Joseph S, Callery MP et al (2008) POSSUM accurately predicts morbidity for pancreatic resection. Surgery 143:8–19

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 37:1859–1867

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 6:39

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Copeland GP (2002) The POSSUM system of surgical audit. Arch Surg 137:15–19

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Copeland GP, Jones D, Walters M (1991) POSSUM: a scoring system for surgical audit. Br J Surg 78:355–360

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Whiteley MS, Prytherch DR, Higgins B et al (1996) An evaluation of the POSSUM surgical scoring system. Br J Surg 83:812–815

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 85:1217–1220

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 18:2808–2817

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Lam CM, Fan ST, Yuen AW et al (2004) Validation of POSSUM scoring systems for audit of major hepatectomy. Br J Surg 91:450–454

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 90:421–425

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 91:288–295

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Copeland GP, Jones D, Walters M. POSSUM risk calculator available at http://www.vasgbi.com/riskpossum.htm. Accessed 17 Feb 2013

  42. Bassi C, Dervenis C, Butturini G et al (2005) Postoperative pancreatic fistula: an international study group (ISGPF) definition. Surgery 138:8–13

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 99:1076–1082

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 16:337–345

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 142:761–768

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Wente MN, Veit JA, Bassi C et al (2007) Postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH): an International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) definition. Surgery 142:20–25

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 101:1644–1655

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 240:205–213

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 101:100–108

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Longmire WP Jr (1984) Cancer of the pancreas: palliative operation, Whipple procedure, or total pancreatectomy. World J Surg 8:872–879. doi:10.1007/BF01656027

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Brooks JR, Culebras JM (1976) Cancer of the pancreas. Palliative operation, Whipple procedure, or total pancreatectomy? Am J Surg 131:516–520

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Choe YM, Lee KY, Oh CA et al (2008) Risk factors affecting pancreatic fistulas after pancreaticoduodenectomy. World J Gastroenterol 14:6970–6974

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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

    Google Scholar 

  54. Crippa S, Salvia R, Falconi M et al (2007) Anastomotic leakage in pancreatic surgery. HPB (Oxford) 9:8–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 937–939

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 13:5351–5356

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Liang TB, Bai XL, Zheng SS (2007) Pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy: diagnosed according to International Study Group Pancreatic Fistula (ISGPF) definition. Pancreatology 7:325–331

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Lin JW, Cameron JL, Yeo CJ et al (2004) Risk factors and outcomes in postpancreaticoduodenectomy pancreaticocutaneous fistula. J Gastrointest Surg 8:951–959

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 14:557–563

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Kamoda Y, Fujino Y, Matsumoto I et al (2008) Usefulness of performing a pancreaticojejunostomy with an internal stent after a pancreatoduodenectomy. Surg Today 38:524–528

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 433–425

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. de Castro SM, Busch OR, van Gulik TM et al (2005) Incidence and management of pancreatic leakage after pancreatoduodenectomy. Br J Surg 92:1117–1123

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 119:281–287

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 12:51–56

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Shyr YM, Su CH, Wu CW et al (2003) Does drainage fluid amylase reflect pancreatic leakage after pancreaticoduodenectomy? World J Surg 27:606–610. doi:10.1007/s00268-003-6841-y

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 41:957–961

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 707–708

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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) 12:696–702

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 216:1–14

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):466–472

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Lodh M, Raleigh ML, Uccello C et al (2010) Risk assessment and risk adjustment. Am Acad Actuaries. Available from URL: http://www.actuary.org/pdf/health/Risk_Adjustment_Issue_Brief_Final_5-26-10.pdf. Accessed 17 Feb 2013

  73. Munro J, Booth A, Nicholl J (1997) Routine preoperative testing: a systematic review of the evidence. Health Technol Assess 1:i–iv 1–62

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Casadei B, Abuzeid H (2005) Is there a strong rationale for deferring elective surgery in patients with poorly controlled hypertension? J Hypertens 23:19–22

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Brooks-Brunn JA (1997) Predictors of postoperative pulmonary complications following abdominal surgery. Chest 111:564–571

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Archer RP, Jacobson JM (1993) Are critical items “critical” for the MMPI-A. J Pers Assess 61:547–556

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Littleton SW (2012) Impact of obesity on respiratory function. Respirology 17:43–49

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Goldwasser P, Feldman J (1997) Association of serum albumin and mortality risk. J Clin Epidemiol 50:693–703

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 17:2537–2544

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Funding

Karolinska Institutet.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Surgery, K53, Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology (CLINTEC), Department of Surgical Gastroenterology, Karolinska Institutet at Karolinska University Hospital, Huddinge, 141 86, Stockholm, Sweden

    C. Ansorge, L. Strömmer, J. Blomberg, L. Lundell, Å. Andrén-Sandberg, M. Del Chiaro & R. Segersvärd

  2. Department of Surgery, Visby Hospital, Visby, Sweden

    P. Lindström

Authors
  1. C. Ansorge
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. P. Lindström
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. L. Strömmer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. J. Blomberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. L. Lundell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Å. Andrén-Sandberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. M. Del Chiaro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. R. Segersvärd
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to C. Ansorge.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ansorge, C., Lindström, P., Strömmer, L. et al. Assessing Surgical Quality: Comparison of General and Procedure-Specific Morbidity Estimation Models for the Risk Adjustment of Pancreaticoduodenectomy Outcomes. World J Surg 38, 2412–2421 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-014-2554-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-014-2554-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation