Front. Neurol. Frontiers in Neurology Front. Neurol. 1664-2295 Frontiers Media S.A. 10.3389/fneur.2021.782666 Neurology Study Protocol Enhancing Safety in Epilepsy Surgery (EASINESS): Study Protocol for a Retrospective, Multicenter, Open Registry Drexler Richard 1 * Ben-Haim Sharona 2 Bien Christian G. 3 Borger Valeri 4 Cardinale Francesco 5 Carpentier Alexandre 6 Cendes Fernando 7 Chandra Sarat 8 Clusmann Hans 9 Colon Albert 10 Curtis Marco de 11 Delev Daniel 9 Didato Giuseppe 11 Dührsen Lasse 1 Farah Jibril Osman 12 Guenot Marc 13 14 Ghatan Saadi 15 Haegelen Claire 13 14 Hamer Hajo 16 Hauptmann Jason S. 17 Jeffree Rosalind L. 18 19 Kalbhenn Thilo 20 Kegele Josua 21 Krayenbühl Niklaus 22 Lang Johannes 16 Mathon Bertrand 6 Naros Georgios 21 Onken Julia 23 Panov Fedor 15 Raftopoulos Christian 24 Ricklefs Franz L. 1 Rijkers Kim 25 Rizzi Michele 26 Rössler Karl 27 Schijns Olaf 25 28 Schneider Ulf C. 23 Spyrantis Andrea 29 Strzelczyk Adam 29 Stodieck Stefan 30 Tripathi Manjari 8 Vadera Sumeet 31 Alonso-Vanegas Mario A. 32 Vaz José Géraldo Ribero 24 Wellmer Jörg 33 Wehner Tim 33 Westphal Manfred 1 Sauvigny Thomas 1 1Department of Neurosurgery, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany 2Department of Neurosurgery, University of California San Diego, San Diego, CA, United States 3Epilepsy Centre Bethel, Krankenhaus Mara, Bielefeld, Germany 4Department of Neurosurgery, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany 5“C. Munari” Epilepsy Surgery Center, Niguarda Hospital, Milan, Italy 6Department of Neurosurgery, Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital, Paris, France 7Department of Neurology, University of Campinas, Campinas, Brazil 8Department of Neurosurgery, AIIMS, New Delhi, India 9Department of Neurosurgery, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany 10School for Mental Health and Neuroscience (MHeNS), University Maastricht (UM), Maastricht, Netherlands 11Epilepsy Unit, IRCCS “C. Besta” Neurological Institute Foundation, Milan, Italy 12The Walton Centre NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, United Kingdom 13Department of Functional Neurosurgery, P. Wertheimer Hospital, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon, France 14Department for Neurosurgery, University of Lyon, Lyon, France 15Department of Neurosurgery, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, United States 16Epilepsy Center, Department of Neurology, University of Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany 17Department of Neurosurgery, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States 18Department of Neurosurgery, Royal Brisbane and Womens Hospital, Brisbane, QLD, Australia 19Herston Clinical School, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia 20Department of Neurosurgery (Evangelisches Klinikum Bethel), Bielefeld University, Medical School, Bielefeld, Germany 21Department of Neurology and Epileptology, Hertie Institute of Clinical Brain Research, University of Tubingen, Tubingen, Germany 22Division of Pediatric Neurosurgery, University Children's Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland 23Department of Neurosurgery, Universitätsmedizin Charité-Berlin, Berlin, Germany 24Department of Neurosurgery, University Hospital St-Luc, Université Catholique de Louvain (UCL), Brussels, Belgium 25Department of Neurosurgery, Academic Center for Epileptology UMC Maastricht, Maastricht, Netherlands 26Department of Neurosurgery, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Neurologico Carlo Besta, Milan, Italy 27Department of Neurosurgery, Medical University Vienna, Vienna, Austria 28School for Mental Health and Neuroscience (MHeNS), University Maastricht (UM), Maastricht, Netherlands 29Department of Neurosurgery and Epilepsy Center Frankfurt Rhine-Main, Center of Neurology and Neurosurgery, Goethe-University Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany 30Hamburg Epilepsy Center, Protestant Hospital Alsterdorf, Department of Neurology and Epileptology, Hamburg, Germany 31Department of Neurological Surgery, University of California Irvine, Irvine, CA, United States 32National Institute of Neurology and Neurosurgery, Manuel Velasco Suarez, Mexico City, Mexico 33Ruhr - Epileptology, Department of Neurology, University Hospital Knappschafts-Krankenhaus, Ruhr - University Bochum, Bochum, Germany

Edited by: Edoardo Ferlazzo, University of Catanzaro, Italy

Reviewed by: Rushna Ali, Spectrum Health, United States; Sandrine de Ribaupierre, Western University, Canada

 *Correspondence: Richard Drexler r.drexler@uke.de

This article was submitted to Epilepsy, a section of the journal Frontiers in Neurology

 13 12 2021 2021 12 782666 24 09 2021 05 11 2021 Copyright © 2021 Drexler, Ben-Haim, Bien, Borger, Cardinale, Carpentier, Cendes, Chandra, Clusmann, Colon, Curtis, Delev, Didato, Dührsen, Farah, Guenot, Ghatan, Haegelen, Hamer, Hauptmann, Jeffree, Kalbhenn, Kegele, Krayenbühl, Lang, Mathon, Naros, Onken, Panov, Raftopoulos, Ricklefs, Rijkers, Rizzi, Rössler, Schijns, Schneider, Spyrantis, Strzelczyk, Stodieck, Tripathi, Vadera, Alonso-Vanegas, Vaz, Wellmer, Wehner, Westphal and Sauvigny. 2021 Drexler, Ben-Haim, Bien, Borger, Cardinale, Carpentier, Cendes, Chandra, Clusmann, Colon, Curtis, Delev, Didato, Dührsen, Farah, Guenot, Ghatan, Haegelen, Hamer, Hauptmann, Jeffree, Kalbhenn, Kegele, Krayenbühl, Lang, Mathon, Naros, Onken, Panov, Raftopoulos, Ricklefs, Rijkers, Rizzi, Rössler, Schijns, Schneider, Spyrantis, Strzelczyk, Stodieck, Tripathi, Vadera, Alonso-Vanegas, Vaz, Wellmer, Wehner, Westphal and Sauvigny

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

Introduction: Optimizing patient safety and quality improvement is increasingly important in surgery. Benchmarks and clinical quality registries are being developed to assess the best achievable results for several surgical procedures and reduce unwarranted variation between different centers. However, there is no clinical database from international centers for establishing standardized reference values of patients undergoing surgery for mesial temporal lobe epilepsy.

Design: The Enhancing Safety in Epilepsy Surgery (EASINESS) study is a retrospectively conducted, multicenter, open registry. All patients undergoing mesial temporal lobe epilepsy surgery in participating centers between January 2015 and December 2019 are included in this study. The patient characteristics, preoperative diagnostic tools, surgical data, postoperative complications, and long-term seizure outcomes are recorded.

Outcomes: The collected data will be used for establishing standardized reference values (“benchmarks”) for this type of surgical procedure. The primary endpoints include seizure outcomes according to the International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) classification and defined postoperative complications.

Discussion: The EASINESS will define robust and standardized outcome references after amygdalohippocampectomy for temporal lobe epilepsy. After the successful definition of benchmarks from an international cohort of renowned centers, these data will serve as reference values for the evaluation of novel surgical techniques and comparisons among centers for future clinical trials.

Clinical trial registration: This study is indexed at clinicaltrials.gov (NT 04952298).

 epilepsy epilepsy surgery temporal lobe epilepsy outcome benchmark seizure outcome amygdalohippocampectomy anteromedial resection Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf10.13039/501100012680 Introduction

Surgeons strive for the best possible outcome from their operations with the greatest possible chance for recovery and cure of the patients. To optimize the outcome, the continuous monitoring and measurement of key elements of surgical procedures are indispensable. To this end, the number of clinical registries has increased in recent years (1). To evaluate surgical quality, recent initiatives aim to assess the best achievable results for several surgical procedures and reduce unwarranted variation between different centers (2–4). A standardized methodology to describe optimal outcomes in neurosurgery is lacking. The most appealing concept in surgery is a combination of various clinical indicators with risk stratification and a focus on treatment efficacy and adverse events. This offers a more reliable analysis than single-outcome indicators, such as survival or readmission rate (5–10). Nevertheless, an establishment of clinical databases from international centers with an accurate collection of demographic, management, and outcome data for respective surgical procedures is needed. The importance of establishing benchmarks has been demonstrated for various surgical procedures in general and visceral surgery (11–15). As yet, there is very little published about acceptable neurosurgical benchmarks. A benchmark establishes standardized reference values which represent the acceptable common outcome of high-volume centers and can be used for comparison and improvement. Best results are obtained from patients at the lowest risk (10). Therefore, the cohort must be divided into low-risk and high-risk patients according to the defined benchmark criteria that predict a potentially worse postoperative outcome.

The aim of this international multicenter register [Enhancing Safety in Epilepsy Surgery (EASINESS)] is to define robust and standardized outcome references after amygdalohippocampectomy and anteromedial temporal lobectomy for temporal lobe epilepsy. After the successful determination of benchmarks from an international cohort of renowned centers, these data will serve as reference values for the evaluation of novel surgical techniques and comparisons among centers for future clinical trials. They will provide feedback to participating centers to enable deficiencies in care to be addressed, thereby enabling quality improvement. This registry will demonstrate the feasibility and utility of risk-stratified benchmarked data for neurosurgical practice.

 Materials and Methods Study Design

The EASINESS is a retrospectively conducted, multicenter, open registry. The study is a procedure-specific registry, initiated by the Department of Neurosurgery, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany. The selected members of participating neurosurgical or epilepsy centers will be invited to form a Steering Committee, which will be responsible for the scientific goals and guarantee the reliability of the data analysis. Neurosurgical, neurological, and epilepsy units from all countries are invited to join the trial and to recruit patients if the center- and patient-specific inclusion criteria are met.

 Study Setting and Type of Participants

All patients undergoing mesial temporal lobe epilepsy surgery between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2019 are included in the study. The following surgical procedures are included: selective amygdalohippocampectomy including anterior parahippocampal gyrus/entorhinal cortex, anteromedial temporal lobe resection including amygdalohippocampectomy with approximately anterior third of the temporal neocortex, amygdala, uncus, hippocampus, anterior parahippocampal gyrus/entorhinal cortex, and anterior temporal lobe resection with two-thirds of the temporal neocortex, amygdala, uncus, hippocampus, and anterior parahippocampal gyrus/entorhinal cortex (16, 17). Patients who went through deep brain stimulation, vagus nerve stimulation, neocortical temporal resection only, or a recurrent resection are not included in this study.

 Center-Specific Inclusion Criteria

The participating centers need to perform 30 or more seizure-specific resections as an average per year during the 5-year study period. This threshold is based on the recommendations of the German Society for Epileptology and the Austrian, German, and Swiss working group on presurgical epilepsy diagnosis and operative epilepsy treatment for certification as an epilepsy center performing epilepsy surgery (18, 19). International centers may be accepted on a case-by-case basis if they meet the alternative local guidelines for epilepsy center definition. The implantation of vagus nerve stimulators was not counted toward the number of seizure-specific procedures (Table 1).

Inclusion and exclusion criteria for centers and patients to participate in the Enhancing Safety in Epilepsy Surgery (EASINESS) registry.

Inclusion criteria Exclusion criteria
Center-specific:
1. Centers with ≥30 seizure-specific resections (excluding vagus nerve stimulation) as an average per year during the study period
Patient-specific:
1. Patients who went through mesial temporal lobe epilepsy surgery, including:     a. Selective Amygdalohippocempectomy including anterior parahippocampal gyrus / entorhinal cortex     b. Anteromedial temporal lobe resection including amygdalohippocampectomy     c. Anterior temporal lobe resection 1. Patients who went through neocortical temporal resection only 2. Patients who went through recurrent resection
Informed Consent

Written informed consent is not required in this retrospective study since all patient data are processed anonymously. The study was approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee centrally at University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf and local governance approval was obtained by each site as necessary. The patients' data were extracted and analyzed following the declaration of Helsinki.

 Data Collection

According to a standardized template for mesial temporal lobe epilepsy surgery, patient-specific data, surgical details, postoperative complications, and long-term seizure outcome including neuropsychological assessment will be recorded. The data acquisition will be electronic-based (case report form, CRF), and patient-specific data will be de-identified by the study center. The data will then be transferred into an electronic database and further analyses made at the Department of Neurosurgery, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf.

 Case Report Form

The specially designed and developed Case Report Form (CRF) consists of four parts (Figure 1).

Patient characteristics: The first part of the CRF covers preoperative characteristics including patient demographic and baseline characteristics (sex, age, body mass index, educational status, neurological status), comorbidities (diabetes, congestive heart failure, coagulopathy, and COPD), and the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Physical Status Classification. In addition, seizure-specific features such as a history of neonatal seizure, febrile seizure, encephalitis or meningitis, age at epilepsy onset, type of seizure, average monthly frequency of seizures, and a number of anticonvulsive drugs at the time of surgery are registered. Furthermore, presurgical diagnostic tools (e.g., invasive monitoring, PET, SPECT, MEG) and possible lesions in MRI will be documented.

Surgical data: This part covers all aspects of mesial temporal lobe epilepsy surgery. Here, type of procedure, intraoperative navigation, resection of the dominant or non-dominant hemisphere, side of resection, and the operating duration are registered.

Postoperative complications: The fourth part addresses all questions of the outcome until discharge after index surgery. Postoperative complications such as stroke, surgical site infection, meningitis, reoperation, new neurological deficits, and in-hospital mortality will be recorded. In addition, the histological finding of the resected lesion is registered.

Follow-up: Long-term clinical and seizure outcome after 12 months and an optional later time will be recorded. Here, long-term complications such as reoperation, temporalis muscle atrophy, and neurological deficits are registered. To analyze the seizure-specific outcome after surgery, the International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) outcome scale, neuropsychological assessment (verbal and figural memory, attention), and the number of antiseizure medications will be documented.

Study protocol of the Enhancing Safety in Epilepsy Surgery (EASINESS) registry.

 Data Management

Data collection will be performed locally at each site and de-identified in an independent database, then submitted to the Department of Neurosurgery at University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (Germany). All results, including patient-specific data, surgical techniques, complications, and long-term outcomes, will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals and/or reported at professional scientific meetings. Every participating center can submit further scientific questions which will be evaluated by the steering committee for approval or rejection. The by-laws of the steering committee are accessible from the principal investigator upon request. This study is indexed at clinicaltrials.gov (NT 04952298).

 Statistics

The endpoints will be evaluated using descriptive statistics, and the key figures of the distributions will be presented in tables. Statistical analyses will be made as described in previous studies which established the concept of benchmarking for other surgical procedures (10, 11, 15). Hereby, the cohort is stratified into patients with a low-preoperative and high-preoperative risk profile according to comorbidities which are proven to negatively impact the postoperative course. Afterward, the benchmark cut-off for each outcome indicator is set at the 75th percentile of the median of all centers (10). Depending on the composition of the data, χ2, Mann-Whitney U, and t-tests, or Pearson or Spearman correlation coefficients, will be conducted. The relationships between multiple independent variables on the dependent variable(s) will be tested using multivariate regression analysis.

 Registry Reports

The results of the EASINESS registry will be published by the Steering Committee and distributed to all participating centers following careful analysis by the principal investigators (R.D. and T.S.) at the Department of Neurosurgery, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf.

 Discussion

In recent years, quality monitoring and improvement have become more important in the field of healthcare, especially in surgery (20, 21). As a various single- and multiple-outcome indicators for evaluating the quality of surgical procedures were introduced, the concept of benchmarking as introduced by Staiger et al. seems to be the most reliable concept for establishing standardized outcome references and defining acceptable outcomes (10). Benchmarking offers an opportunity to present valid, internationally applicable reference values which originate from the daily routine of a large representative cohort. This will be the first internationally validated benchmark data for neurosurgery and as such will demonstrate that such data collection is both feasible and useful.

Unlike data from randomized controlled trials, which have stringent patient selection criteria and questionable generalizability, this study has only a few patient-specific inclusion criteria, and the results will therefore be generalizable to usual neurosurgical practice.

The EASINESS is a retrospectively conducted, multicenter, open registry with narrowly defined inclusion criteria for international centers. The objective is the application of the previously described benchmarking to define robust and standardized outcome references after temporal lobe epilepsy surgery. Afterward, these benchmarks from an international cohort of high-volume centers will serve as reference values for the evaluation of novel surgical techniques and comparisons among centers or future clinical trials. Furthermore, EASINESS has been established with an interdisciplinary approach collecting outcome data from both a neurosurgical and epileptogenic perspective and presenting novel valuable data compared with existing registries.

Limitations of This Study

The results of this registry should be interpreted considering the limitation that the study design is a retrospective, non-randomized design which could introduce some bias.

 Ethics Statement

The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by Local Ethics Committee Hamburg 2021-300051-WF. Written informed consent to participate in this study was provided by the participants' legal guardian/next of kin.

 Author Contributions

RD, LD, and TS contributed to conceptualization and design. All authors drafted the manuscript, critically revised it and collect the data.

 Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

 Publisher's Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

 References Stey AM Russell MM Ko CY Sacks GD Dawes AJ Gibbons MM. Clinical registries and quality measurement in surgery: a systematic review. Surgery. (2015) 157:381–95. 10.1016/j.surg.2014.08.09725616951 Khuri SF Daley J Henderson W Hur K Demakis J Aust JB . The Department of Veterans Affairs' NSQIP: the first national, validated, outcome-based, risk-adjusted, and peer-controlled program for the measurement and enhancement of the quality of surgical care. National VA Surgical Quality Improvement Program. Ann Surg. (1998) 228:491–507. 10.1097/00000658-199810000-000069790339 Rowell KS Turrentine FE Hutter MM Khuri SF Henderson WG. Use of national surgical quality improvement program data as a catalyst for quality improvement. J Am Coll Surg. (2007) 204:1293–300. 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2007.03.02417544087 Kao LS Lally KP Thomas EJ Tyson JE. Improving quality improvement: a methodologic framework for evaluating effectiveness of surgical quality improvement. J Am Coll Surg. (2009) 208:621–6. 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2009.01.02119476799 Dimick JB Welch HG Birkmeyer JD. Surgical mortality as an indicator of hospital quality: the problem with small sample size. JAMA. (2004) 292:847–51. 10.1001/jama.292.7.84715315999 Porter ME. What is value in health care? N Engl J Med. (2010) 363:2477–81. 10.1056/NEJMp101102421142528 Donabedian A. The quality of care. How can it be assessed? JAMA J Am Med Assoc. (1988) 260:1743–8. 10.1001/jama.260.12.17433045356 Salet N Bremmer RH Verhagen MAMT Ekkelenkamp VE Hansen BE de Jonge PJF . Is Textbook Outcome a valuable composite measure for short-term outcomes of gastrointestinal treatments in the Netherlands using hospital information system data? A retrospective cohort study. BMJ Open. (2018) 8:e019405. 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-01940529496668 Mainz J. Defining and classifying clinical indicators for quality improvement. Int J Qual Health Care J Int Soc Qual Health Care. (2003) 15:523–30. 10.1093/intqhc/mzg08114660535 Staiger RD Schwandt H Puhan MA Clavien P-A. Improving surgical outcomes through benchmarking. Br J Surg. (2019) 106:59–64. 10.1002/bjs.1097630485405 Muller X Marcon F Sapisochin G Marquez M Dondero F Rayar M . Defining benchmarks in liver transplantation: a multicenter outcome analysis determining best achievable results. Ann Surg. (2018) 267:419–25. 10.1097/SLA.000000000000247728885508 Raptis DA Sánchez-Velázquez P Machairas N Sauvanet A Rueda de. Leon A Oba A . Defining benchmark outcomes for pancreatoduodenectomy with portomesenteric venous resection. Ann Surg. (2020) 272:731–7. 10.1097/SLA.000000000000426732889866 Raptis DA Linecker M Kambakamba P Tschuor C Müller PC Hadjittofi C . Defining benchmark outcomes for ALPPS. Ann Surg. (2019) 270:835–41. 10.1097/SLA.000000000000353931592812 Rössler F Sapisochin G Song G Lin Y-H Simpson MA Hasegawa K . Defining benchmarks for major liver surgery: a multicenter analysis of 5202 living liver donors. Ann Surg. (2016) 264:492–500. 10.1097/SLA.000000000000184927433909 Sánchez-Velázquez P Muller X Malleo G Park J-S Hwang H-K Napoli N . Benchmarks in pancreatic surgery: a novel tool for unbiased outcome comparisons. Ann Surg. (2019) 270:211–8. 10.1097/SLA.000000000000322330829701 Schramm J. Temporal lobe epilepsy surgery and the quest for optimal extent of resection: a review. Epilepsia. (2008) 49:1296–307. 10.1111/j.1528-1167.2008.01604.x18410360 Al-Otaibi F Baeesa SS Parrent AG Girvin JP Steven D. Surgical techniques for the treatment of temporal lobe epilepsy. Epilepsy Res Treat. (2012) 2012:1–13. 10.1155/2012/37484822957228 Schmitz B Mayer T Neubauer B Rosenow F Bast T. Definition von Epilepsiezentren [Internet]. (2010). Available online at: http://www.izepilepsie.de/cweb2/cgi-bin-noauth/cache/VAL_BLOB/4092/4092/1106/definitionepilepsiezentren.pdf Rosenow F Bast T Czech T Feucht M Hans VH Helmstaedter C . Revised version of quality guidelines for presurgical epilepsy evaluation and surgical epilepsy therapy issued by the Austrian, German, and Swiss working group on presurgical epilepsy diagnosis and operative epilepsy treatment. Epilepsia. (2016) 57:1215–20. 10.1111/epi.1344927354263 Ettorchi-Tardy A Levif M Michel P. Benchmarking: a method for continuous quality improvement in health. Healthc Policy Polit Sante. (2012) 7:e101–119. 10.12927/hcpol.2012.2287223634166 von Eiff W. International benchmarking and best practice management: in search of health care and hospital excellence. Adv Health Care Manag. (2015) 17:223–52. 10.1108/S1474-82312014000001701425985514