Considering Surgeon Skill in Randomized Clinical Trials

Characteristics of Randomized Clinical Trials in Surgery From 2008 to 2020: A Systematic Review

IMPORTANCE

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) provide the highest level of evidence to evaluate 2 or more surgical interventions. Surgical RCTs, however, face unique challenges in design and implementation.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the design, conduct, and reporting of contemporary surgical RCTs.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

A literature search performed in the 2 journals with the highest impact factor in general medicine as well as 6 key surgical specialties was conducted to identify RCTs published between 2008 and 2020. All RCTs describing a surgical intervention in both experimental and control arms were included. The quality of included data was assessed by establishing an a priori protocol containing all the details to extract. Trial characteristics, fragility index, risk of bias (Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 Tool), pragmatism (Pragmatic Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary 2 [PRECIS-2]), and reporting bias were assessed.

FINDINGS

A total of 388 trials were identified. Of them, 242 (62.4%) were registered; discrepancies with the published protocol were identified in 81 (33.5%). Most trials used superiority design (329 [84.8%]), and intention-to-treat as primary analysis (221 [56.9%]) and were designed to detect a large treatment effect (50.0%; interquartile range [IQR], 24.7%-63.3%). Only 123 trials (31.7%) used major clinical events as the primary outcome. Most trials (303 [78.1%]) did not control for surgeon experience; only 17 trials (4.4%) assessed the quality of the intervention. The median sample size was 122 patients (IQR, 70-245 patients). The median follow-up was 24 months (IQR, 12.0-32.0 months). Most trials (211 [54.4%]) had some concern of bias and 91 (23.5%) had high risk of bias. The mean (SD) PRECIS-2 score was 3.52 (0.65) and increased significantly over the study period. Most trials (212 [54.6%]) reported a neutral result; reporting bias was identified in 109 of 211 (51.7%). The median fragility index was 3.0 (IQR, 1.0-6.0). Multiplicity was detected in 175 trials (45.1%), and only 35 (20.0%) adjusted for multiple comparisons.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this systematic review, the size of contemporary surgical trials was small and the focus was on minor clinical events. Trial registration remained suboptimal and discrepancies with the published protocol and reporting bias were frequent. Few trials controlled for surgeon experience or assessed the quality of the intervention.

Decision points in pancreatoduodenectomy: Insights from the contemporary experts on prevention, mitigation, and management of postoperative pancreatic fistula

BACKGROUND

Despite abundant, high-level scientific evidence, there is no consensus regarding the prevention, mitigation, and management of clinically relevant pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy. The aim of the present investigation is three-fold: (1) to analyze the multiple decision-making points for pancreatico-enteric anastomotic creation and fistula mitigation and management after pancreatoduodenectomy, (2) to reveal the practice of contemporary experts, and (3) to indicate avenues for future research to reduce the burden of clinically relevant pancreatic fistula.

METHODS

A 109-item questionnaire was sent to a panel of international pancreatic surgery experts, recognized for their clinical and scientific authority. Their practice habits and thought processes regarding clinically relevant pancreatic fistula risk assessment, anastomotic construction, application of technical adjuncts, and mitigation strategies, as well as postoperative management, was explored. Sixteen clinical vignettes were presented to reveal their certain approaches to unique situations-both common and uncommon.

RESULTS

Sixty experts, with a cumulative 48,860 pancreatoduodenectomies, completed the questionnaire. Their median pancreatectomy/pancreatoduodenectomy case volume was 1,200 and 705 procedures, respectively, with a median career duration of 22 years and 200 indexed publications. Although pancreatico-jejunostomy reconstruction with transperitoneal drainage is the standard operative approach for most authorities, uncertainty emerges regarding the employment of objective risk stratification and adaptation of practice to risk. Concrete suggestions are offered to inform decision-making in intimidating circumstances. Early drain removal is frequently embraced, while a step-up approach is unanimously invoked to treat severe clinically relevant pancreatic fistula.

CONCLUSION

A comprehensive conceptual framework of 4 sequential phases of decision-making is proposed-risk assessment, anastomotic technique, mitigation strategy employment, and postoperative management. Basic science studies and outcome analyses are proposed for improvement.