A senior surgical resident can safely perform complex esophageal cancer surgery after surgical mentoring program—experience of a European high-volume center
Authors: Babic Benjamin , Mueller Dolores T , Krones Tillman L , Schiffmann Lars M , Straatman Jennifer , Eckhoff Jennifer A , Brunner Stefanie , Datta Rabi R , Schmidt Thomas , Schröder Wolfgang , Bruns Christiane J , Fuchs Hans F 
Published: March 2024

Previous studies have shown that surgical residents can safely perform a variation of complex abdominal surgeries when provided with adequate training, proper case selection, and appropriate supervision. Their outcomes are equivalent when compared to experienced board-certified surgeons. Our previously published training curriculum for robotic assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy already demonstrated a possible reduction in time to reach proficiency. However, esophagectomy is a technically challenging procedure and comes with high morbidity rates of up to 60%, making it difficult to provide opportunities to train surgical residents. We aimed to investigate if a surgical resident could safely perform complex esophageal surgery when a structured modular teaching curriculum is applied. A structured teaching program based on our previously published modular step-up approach was applied by two experienced board-certified esophageal surgeons. Our IRB-approved (Institutional Review Board) database was searched to identify all Ivor-Lewis esophagectomies performed by the selected surgical resident from August 2019 to July 2021. The cumulative sum method was used to analyze the learning curve of the surgical resident. Outcomes of patients operated by the resident were then compared to our overall cohort of open, hybrid, and robotic Ivor-Lewis esophagectomies from May 2016 to May 2020. The total cohort included 567 patients, of which 65 were operated by the surgical resident and 502 patients were operated by experienced esophageal cancer surgeons as the control group. For baseline characteristics, a significant difference for BMI (Body mass index) was observed, which was lower in the resident’s group (25.5 kg/m2 vs. 26.8 kg/m2 (P = 0.046). A significant difference of American Society of Anesthesiologists- and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group-scores was seen, and a subgroup analysis including all patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists I and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group 0 was performed revealing no significant differences. Postoperative complications did not differ between groups. The anastomotic leak rate was 13.8% in the resident’s cohort and 12% in the control cohort (P = 0.660). Major complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥ IIIb) occurred in 16.9% of patients in both groups. Oncological outcome, defined by harvested lymph nodes (35 vs. 32.33, P = 0.096), proportion of lymph node compliant performed operations (86.2% vs. 88.4%, P = 0.590), and R0-resection rate (96.9% vs. 96%, P = 0.766), was not compromised when esophagectomies were performed by the resident. The resident completed the learning curves after 39 cases for the total operating time, 38 cases for the thoracic operating time, 26 cases for the number of harvested lymph nodes, 29 cases for anastomotic leak rate, and finally 58 cases for the comprehensive complication index. For postoperative complications, no significant difference was seen between patients operated in the resident group versus the control group, with a third of patients being discharged with a textbook outcome in both cohorts. Furthermore, no difference in oncological quality of the resection was found, emphasizing safety and feasibility of our training program. A structured modular step-up for training a surgical resident to perform complex esophageal cancer surgery can successfully maintain patient safety and outcomes.