Outcomes After Independent Trainee Versus Consultant-led Emergency Laparotomy

Objective: We utilized a population dataset to compare outcomes for patients where surgery was independently performed by trainees to cases led by a consultant. Summary of Background Data: Emergency laparotomy is a common, high-risk, procedure. Although trainee involvement to improve future surgeons’ experience and ability in the management of such cases is crucial, some studies have suggested this is to the detriment of patient outcomes. In the UK, appropriately skilled trainees may be entrusted to perform emergency laparotomy without supervision of a consultant (attending). Methods: Patients who underwent emergency laparotomy between 2013 and 2018 were identified from the National Emergency Laparotomy Audit of England and Wales. To reduce selection and confounding bias, the inverse probability of treatment weighting approach was used, allowing robust comparison of trainee-led and consultant-led laparotomy cases accounting for eighteen variables, including details of patient, treatment, pathology, and preoperative mortality risk. Groups were compared for mortality and length of stay. Results: A total of 111,583 patients were included in the study. The operating surgeon was a consultant in 103,462 cases (92.7%) and atrainee in 8121 cases (7.3%). Mortality at discharge was 11.6%. Trainees were less likely to operate on high-risk and colorectal cases. After weighting, mortality (12.2% vs 11.6%, P = 0.338) was equivalent between trainee- and consultant-led cases. Median length of stay was 11 (interquartile range 7, 19) versus 11 (7, 20) days ( P = 0.004), respectively. Trainee-led operations reported fewer cases of blood loss >500mL (9.1% vs 11.1%, P < 0.001). Conclusions: Major laparotomy maybe safely entrusted to appropriately skilled trainees without impacting patient outcomes.