Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2019 Apr;11(Suppl 5):S771-S776.
doi: 10.21037/jtd.2018.11.124.

Benchmark analyses in minimally invasive esophagectomy-impact on surgical quality improvement

Affiliations
Review

Benchmark analyses in minimally invasive esophagectomy-impact on surgical quality improvement

Roxane D Staiger et al. J Thorac Dis. 2019 Apr.

Abstract

Over the last decades, benchmarking has become an established management tool to improve quality in commercial economics. It is a rather new concept in the healthcare industry, and a confusingly wide range of approaches referring to "benchmarking" have been employed in the field of minimally invasive esophageal cancer surgery. It is our conviction that benchmarking will be an essential element of surgical research in the future. Therefore, defining and implementing standards is not only a desirable, but a vital step. Recently, we have introduced a standardized method of establishing valid benchmarks for surgical quality improvement including ideal outcome thresholds for total minimally invasive transthoracic esophagectomy (ttMIE). The present article aims at discussing the actual literature on benchmarking in minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) and at fueling the debate on how to further improve the current practice of surgical outcome research.

Keywords: Benchmark; minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE); outcome research; surgical quality.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Benchmark values at 30 days after surgery. Results better than the given threshold are considered to be within the benchmark.

References

    1. Harrington HJ, Harrington JS. High Performance Benchmarking: 20 Steps to Success. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996.
    1. Zairi M, Leonard P. Practical benchmarking: the complete guide. London: Chapman & Hall, 1994.
    1. Staiger RD, Schwandt H, Puhan MA, et al. Improving surgical outcomes through benchmarking. Br J Surg 2019;106:59-64. 10.1002/bjs.10976 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Schiesser M, Kirchhoff P, Muller MK, et al. The correlation of nutrition risk index, nutrition risk score, and bioimpedance analysis with postoperative complications in patients undergoing gastrointestinal surgery. Surgery 2009;145:519-26. 10.1016/j.surg.2009.02.001 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Awad S, Lobo DN. Metabolic conditioning to attenuate the adverse effects of perioperative fasting and improve patient outcomes. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care 2012;15:194-200. 10.1097/MCO.0b013e32834f0078 - DOI - PubMed