%0 Journal Article %T Benchmark values for transthoracic esophagectomy are not set as the defined “best possible”—a validation study %A Helminen, Olli %A Mrena, Johanna %A Sihvo, Eero %J Journal of Thoracic Disease %D 2018 %B 2018 %9 %! Benchmark values for transthoracic esophagectomy are not set as the defined “best possible”—a validation study %K %X Background: Recently, benchmark values for low-comorbidity patients at high-volume centers were set to define “best achievable results” for transthoracic minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE). We aimed to validate suggested benchmark values by comparing them to outcomes at a medium-volume center in Finland. Methods: All MIEs (n=82) performed at Central Finland Central Hospital between September 2012 and November 2017 including 75 totally MIE and 7 hybrid procedures. The aim of the study was to compare the results to previously suggested benchmark parameters for postoperative morbidity measured with the Clavien-Dindo classification and comprehensive complication index. Target benchmark parameters were ≤55.7% for any complications, ≤30.8% for major complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥3a), ≤40.8% for 30-day and ≤42.8% for 90-day comprehensive complication index, ≤20% for anastomosis leak, ≤31.6% for pulmonary complications, ≤1.0% for 30-day mortality and ≤4.6% for 90-day mortality. Results: Compared with benchmark patients, our patients were older (median 68 vs . 58 years), with more comorbidities. All parameters measuring complications showed better results in our study than benchmark values. Median intensive care unit stay of 1 (IQR, 1–1) and hospital stay of 9 (IQR, 9–12) days were also shorter. At least 1 complication developed in 45.1%, and 6.1% faced major morbidity. Median (IQR) comprehensive complication index for both 30 and 90 days was 0 (IQR, 0–20.9 days). Anastomosis leak and pulmonary complications were observed in 3.7% and 22.0%, respectively. The 30- and 90-day mortality was 1.2% (1/82). Conclusions: Benchmark values assessing postoperative morbidity after MIE do not represent the defined “best achievable” results after completed learning curves. %U https://jtd.amegroups.org/article/view/22240 %V 10 %N 7 %P 4085-4093 %@ 2077-6624