Predictive value according to location of incidental focal colorectal fluorodeoxyglucose uptake on positron emission tomography scans

J. C. Lee,G. Hartnett,A. R. Ravi Kumar

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1463-1318.2012.02938.x

IF: 3.4

2012-05-01

Colorectal Disease

Abstract:Dear Sir, We would like to congratulate Dr Ricciardi et al. [1] for their interesting study exploring the incidence and reasons for reoperation amongst colorectal resection patients using NSQIP data. We agree with the authors’ conclusion that identifying steps that can be taken to prevent surgical complications that require return to theatre is a very important element in improving quality of care in this context. We also suggest that preventing such complications will lead to more cost-effective care [2]. The authors have taken an important first step by assessing the patient characteristics that are associated with higher return to theatre. It will be necessary in the future, however, to establish what defines an ‘acceptable’ or ‘optimal’ reoperation rate. A very low reoperation rate is desirable only in the context where patients are not denied operations and mortality rates are low. Certainly, a low reoperation rate may mean that complications are going undetected and patients are not returning to theatre. In contrast, a high reoperation rate may reflect complex surgical case-mix rather than poor performance. Given the increasing emphasis on outcome measurement, we feel that this is a very important debate in healthcare as it is applicable across international healthcare systems. We undertook a study looking at reoperation rates using English routinely collected data and found similar levels of reoperation within an English population (6.5%) [3] as those reported by Ricciardi et al. It is therefore likely that measures identified to reduce reoperation will be relevant globally. We feel that reoperation when taken alongside other measures can be used to assess and promote good surgical care in colorectal surgery. If, however, we accept that some reoperations are likely to be necessary if patients who have suffered complications are not going to be denied re-intervention, perhaps the next challenge is to measure also surgical providers’ abilities to salvage patients when complications have occurred. In this context a novel metric ‘failure to rescue’ [4,5] has been used to define performance. The collective use of mortality, reoperation and failure to rescue measures may ultimately provide a meaningful assessment of patient care. Finally, if such measures are to be used to judge good performance, evidence of their efficacy is necessary to achieve consensus amongst clinicians, healthcare commissioners and patients. Further research is required to provide the necessary evidence base.