Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

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
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  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):679–685

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):262–268

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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):522–526

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):667–670

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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):603–609

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):689–700

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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):83–91

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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 199–213

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  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):112–124

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Satsangi J, Silverberg MS, Vermeire S, Colombel JF (2006) The montreal classification of inflammatory bowel disease: controversies, consensus, and implications. Gut 55(6):749–753

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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):387–392

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):617–625

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Stocchi L (2010) Laparoscopic surgery for ulcerative colitis. Clin Colon Rectal Surg 23(4):248–258

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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):2718–2722

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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):116–122

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):1590–1596

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):723–730

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):1275–1281

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):317–322

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):199–204

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):1371–1378

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):600–603

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):652–658

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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. 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):943–951

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):1324–1332

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):124–132

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. McCulloch P, Taylor I, Sasako M, Lovett B, Griffin D (2002) Randomised trials in surgery: problems and possible solutions. BMJ 324(7351):1448–1451

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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):1371–1378

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Colorectal Surgery, Digestive Disease Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, A-30, 9500 Euclid Ave, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA

    Ahmet Rencuzogullari, Luca Stocchi, Meagan Costedio, Emre Gorgun, Hermann Kessler & Feza H. Remzi

Authors
  1. Ahmet Rencuzogullari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Luca Stocchi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Meagan Costedio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Emre Gorgun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Hermann Kessler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Feza H. Remzi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Luca Stocchi.

Ethics declarations

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.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rencuzogullari, A., Stocchi, L., Costedio, M. et al. Characteristics of learning curve in minimally invasive ileal pouch-anal anastomosis in a single institution. Surg Endosc 31, 1083–1092 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-016-5068-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-016-5068-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation