P338: summarizing measures of proficiency in transanal total mesorectal excision—a systematic review

Introduction Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) is technically challenging even for experienced colorectal surgeons and there may be a higher risk of complications during learning. Determining when a surgeon is ready to safely perform this technique independently remains a matter of debate. Therefore, the objective of this study was to systematically summarize the available evidence regarding measures of proficiency in TaTME for rectal adenocarcinoma. Methods A systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed Epub records, Biosis previews, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. All English and French language studies published between 2010 and 2018 that described proficiency metrics for TaTME were included. Study heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis, and therefore qualitative synthesis was performed. The primary outcomes were the methodology and measures used to define proficiency, and the number of cases needed to achieve proficiency. Results Of 994 citations, five studies met inclusion criteria. Of these, only two used objective measures to define proficiency. These studies evaluated patient outcomes and defined proficiency through cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis of the primary outcome(s): post-operative complications and TME quality. Two studies reported expert consensus to establish recommendations using a combination of electronic survey distributed to colorectal surgeons and consensus conferences with TaTME experts from 7 to 8 different countries. One study defined the learning phase as 16 months of TaTME practice, or the first 27 cases. Stated case volumes needed to achieve proficiency varied widely. Studies using objective outcome measures reported threshold volumes of 40 and 51 cases, respectively, while expert consensus studies recommended needing 6–30 procedures. Conclusions Significant heterogeneity exists regarding the determination of proficiency benchmarks for TaTME. Expert consensus documents recommend lower case numbers to obtain proficiency than those defined by objective measures, suggesting greater experience may be required than generally thought.