Benchmarking a new tertiary referral center for hepato-biliary surgery through a critical systematic review of available literature

Abstract

Background: Studies reporting benchmark values for surgical procedures should provide instruments for comparison, gap analysis and adoption of corrective measures to improve the outcome.

Methods: A systematic search was performed to identify articles containing the MESH terms "benchmarking" AND "hepatectomy". An Institutional Review Board-approved database of all hepato-biliary surgical procedures, performed in a new tertiary referral surgical unit was used for benchmarking results with the values reported in the literature.

Results: Five articles were suitable for benchmarking: 3 based benchmark values (BMV) on the 75th percentiles of surgical outcomes among high-volume centers, one study provided BMV on the "Achievable Bench-mark of Care" and one study provided BMV on the 75th percentiles through a Bayesian prediction. When we benchmarked our surgical experience of 320 hepatic resections, we found margins for improvement for open major hepatectomies and for laparoscopic multiple resections/concomitant bowel resections but it was impossible to compare homogeneous sub-groups of patients for most of the procedures due to the lack of high-quality literature data.

Conclusion: Benchmarking a surgical experience with the BMV provided in literature was attempted but unfortunately the lack of a standardized way for conducting benchmark analysis did not allow, at present, reliable quality comparison and improvement.

Keywords: Benchmarking; Hepatectomy; Hepatic surgery; Morbidity; Mortality.