Learning curve of laparoscopic and robotic total gastrectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Proficiency in bariatric surgery may shorten the learning curve for minimally-invasive D2 gastrectomy

INTRODUCTION

Evidence from Asian studies suggests that minimally-invasive gastrectomy achieves equivalent oncological but improved perioperative outcomes compared to open surgery. Oncological gastric resections are less frequent in European countries. Index procedures may play a role for the learning curve of minimally-invasive gastrectomy. The aim of our study was to evaluate if skills acquired in bariatric surgery allow a safe and oncologically adequate implementation of minimally-invasive gastrectomy in a cohort of european patients.

METHODS

In this single-center retrospective study, all patients who received primary bariatric surgery between January 2015 and December 2018 and minimally-invasive surgery for gastric cancer treated from June 2019 to January 2023 were evaluated. Primary endpoints were operation time, lymph node yield and lymph node fractions. Secondary endpoints included postoperative complications and oncological outcomes.

RESULTS

Learning curves for two surgeons with 350 bariatric procedures and 44 minimally-invasive gastrectomies were analyzed. For bariatric surgery, the mean operation time decreased from initially 82 ± 27 to 45 ± 21 min and 118 ± 28 to 81 ± 36 min for sleeve gastrectomy (SG) and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), while the complication rate remained within the international benchmark. For laparoscopic gastrectomy (n = 30), operation times decreased but then remained stable over time. Operation times for the robotic platform were longer (302 ± 60 vs. 390 ± 48 min; p < 0.001) with the learning curve remaining incomplete after 14 procedures. R0 status was achieved in 95.5% of patients; the mean number of lymph nodes retrieved was 37 ± 14 with no differences between the groups. Complete mesogastric excision was more frequently achieved during the later laparoscopic cases whereas it occurred earlier for the robotic group (p = 0.004). Perioperative morbidity was comparable to the European benchmark. Textbook outcome was achieved in 54.4% of the cases.

CONCLUSION

In summary, we could demonstrate a successful skill transfer from bariatric surgery to minimally-invasive laparoscopic oncological gastric surgery enabling safe and oncologically adequate minimally-invasive D2 gastrectomy in a central European patient collective.

Learning Curve of Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy - A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Individual Participant and Aggregated Data

STUDY DESIGN

A systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant and aggregated data.

OBJECTIVES

To define the learning curves of endoscopic discectomies using unified statistical methodologies.

METHODS

Searches returned 913 records, with 118 full-text articles screened. Studies of endoscopic lumbar spine surgery reporting outcomes by case order were included. Mixed-effects nonlinear, logistic, and beta meta-regressions prdwere conducted to define the learning curves.

RESULTS

13 studies involving 864 patients among 15 surgeons were included in total. For transforaminal endoscopic discectomy, the estimated operating time for the first case was 95 min [CI: 87-104], and the estimated plateau was 66 minutes [CI: 51-81]. An estimated 21 cases [CI: 18-25] were required to overcome 80% of this deficit, but near-plateau performance was expected only after 59 cases [CI: 51-70]. The estimated risk of surgical complications on the first case was 25% [CI: 11%-46%], with an 80% reduction in relative risk requiring an estimated 41 cases. The expected postoperative VAS leg pain score after the first case was 2.7 [CI: 1.8-3.8], with an 80% improvement requiring an estimated 96 cases. Similar numbers were required to overcome the learning curves in interlaminar and biportal endoscopic discectomies.

CONCLUSIONS

Approximately 60 cases are required to achieve proficiency in endoscopic lumbar spine surgery, although the greatest part of the learning curve can be overcome with 20 cases. This should be considered when designing implementation programmes for surgeons and service providers that wish to incorporate endoscopic spinal surgery into their practice.

Long-term Oncologic Outcomes of Robotic Total Gastrectomy for Advanced Gastric Cancer

PURPOSE

Although laparoscopic distal gastrectomy has rapidly replaced open distal gastrectomy, laparoscopic total gastrectomy (LTG) is less frequently performed owing to technical difficulties. Robotic surgery could be an appropriate minimally invasive alternative to LTG because it alleviates the technical challenges posed by laparoscopic procedures. However, few studies have compared the oncological safety of robotic total gastrectomy (RTG) with that of LTG, especially for advanced gastric cancer (AGC). Herein, we aimed to assess the oncological outcomes of RTG for AGC and compare them with those of LTG.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 147 and 204 patients who underwent RTG and LTG for AGC, respectively, between 2007 and 2020. Long-term outcomes were compared using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW).

RESULTS

After IPTW, the 2 groups exhibited similar clinicopathological features. The 5-year overall survival was comparable between the 2 groups (88.5% [95% confidence interval {CI}, 79.4%-93.7%] after RTG and 87.3% [95% CI, 80.1%-92.0%]) after LTG; log-rank P=0.544). The hazard ratio (HR) for death after RTG compared with that after LTG was 0.73 (95% CI, 0.40-1.33; P=0.304). The 5-year relapse-free survival was also similar between the 2 groups (75.7% [95% CI, 65.2%-83.4%] after RTG and 76.4% [95% CI, 67.9%-83.0%] after LTG; log-rank P=0.850). The HR for recurrence after RTG compared with that after LTG was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.60-1.46; P=0.753).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings revealed that RTG and LTG for AGC had similar long-term outcomes. RTG is an oncologically safe alternative to LTG and has technical advantages.

Outcomes after gastrectomy according to the Gastrectomy Complications Consensus Group (GCCG) in the Dutch Upper GI Cancer Audit (DUCA)

BACKGROUND

In 2019, the Gastrectomy Complications Consensus Group (GCCG) published a standardized set of complications aiming toward uniform reporting of post-gastrectomy complications. This study aimed to report outcomes after gastrectomy in the Netherlands according to GCCG definitions and compare them to previously reported national results and the European database reported by the GCCG.

METHODS

This nationwide, population-based cohort study included all patients undergoing gastrectomy for gastric cancer registered in the DUCA in 2020-2021. Postoperative morbidity and 30-day/in-hospital mortality were analyzed according to the GCCG definitions. For all patients, baseline characteristics and outcomes were compared with the GCCG cohort consisting of 27 European expert centers (GASTRODATA; 2017-2018).

RESULTS

In 2020-2021, 782 patients underwent gastrectomy in the Netherlands. Variation was seen in baseline characteristics between the Dutch and the GCCG cohort (N = 1349), most notably in minimally invasive surgery (80.6% vs 19.6%, p < 0.001). In the Netherlands, 223 (28.5%) patients developed a total of 407 complications, the most frequent being non-surgical infections (28.5%) and anastomotic leakage (13.4%). The overall complication and 30-day mortality rates were similar between the Dutch and GCCG cohort (28.5% vs 29.8%, p = 0.563; 3.7% vs 3.6%, p = 0.953). Higher surgical and endoscopic/radiologic reintervention rates were observed in the Netherlands compared to the GCCG cohort (10.7% vs 7.8%, p = 0.025; 10.9% vs 2.9%, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Reporting outcomes according to the standardized GCCG definitions allows for international benchmarking. Postoperative outcomes were comparable between Dutch and GCCG cohorts, but both exceed the international benchmark for expert gastrectomy care, highlighting targets for national and international quality improvement.

Evaluating a Single Surgeon's Learning Curve for Laparoscopic Totally Extraperitoneal Repair of Inguinal Hernia with Telescopic Dissection: A Cumulative Sum Control Chart Analysis

Background: Laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal (TEP) inguinal hernia repair (IHR) reduces risk of injury to intraperitoneal structures. Balloon dissection is more costly and has theoretical risk of injury to the surrounding structures compared with telescopic dissection (TD). This study aims to evaluate the learning curve (LC) for TEP IHR with TD of a single surgeon. Methods: This is a 3-year retrospective cohort study from January 2020 to December 2022 on patients who underwent elective laparoscopic TEP unilateral IHR with TD. Exclusion criteria were recurrent inguinal hernia. Cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis was performed to evaluate the number of cases required to surmount the LC, that is, NLC for operating time (OT) and open conversion. One way analysis of variance was used to perform groupwise comparison. Results: There were 69 patients who underwent laparoscopic TEP unilateral IHR with TD. The median age was 58.0 years (range 24.0-80.0) and body mass index was 23.0 (range 18.6-30.0). Majority of the hernia was indirect (n = 48, 69.6%). The median OT was 70 minutes (range 35-210). Three cases (4.3%) had open conversion. One-year recurrence was 4.2% (n = 1/24). CUSUM analysis showed improvement in OT after the eighth case. However, this was followed by multiple inflection points with no apparent stabilization in OT. Pairwise comparison showed a decrease in OT between cases 18-36 and cases 37-54. There was no incidence of open conversion until the 56th case. Conclusion: Laparoscopic TEP IHR using TD is safe in the absence of a practor. A minimum of 36 cases is required to surmount the initial LC.

An international Delphi consensus for surgical quality assessment of lymphadenectomy and anastomosis in minimally invasive total gastrectomy for gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive total gastrectomy (MITG) is a mainstay for curative treatment of patients with gastric cancer. To define and standardize optimal surgical techniques and further improve clinical outcomes through the enhanced MITG surgical quality, there must be consensus on the key technical steps of lymphadenectomy and anastomosis creation, which is currently lacking. This study aimed to determine an expert consensus from an international panel regarding the technical aspects of the performance of MITG for oncological indications using the Delphi method.

METHODS

A 100-point scoping survey was created based on the deconstruction of MITG into its key technical steps through local and international expert opinion and literature evidence. An international expert panel comprising upper gastrointestinal and general surgeons participated in multiple rounds of a Delphi consensus. The panelists voted on the issues concerning importance, difficulty, or agreement using an online questionnaire. A priori consensus standard was set at > 80% for agreement to a statement. Internal consistency and reliability were evaluated using Cronbach's α.

RESULTS

Thirty expert upper gastrointestinal and general surgeons participated in three online Delphi rounds, generating a final consensus of 41 statements regarding MITG for gastric cancer. The consensus was gained from 22, 12, and 7 questions from Delphi rounds 1, 2, and 3, which were rephrased into the 41 statetments respectively. For lymphadenectomy and aspects of anastomosis creation, Cronbach's α for round 1 was 0.896 and 0.886, and for round 2 was 0.848 and 0.779, regarding difficulty or importance.

CONCLUSIONS

The Delphi consensus defined 41 steps as crucial for performing a high-quality MITG for oncological indications based on the standards of an international panel. The results of this consensus provide a platform for creating and validating surgical quality assessment tools designed to improve clinical outcomes and standardize surgical quality in MITG.

Establishing the Learning Curve of Laparoscopic and Robotic Distal Gastrectomy: a Systematic Review and Meta-Regression Analysis

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive distal gastrectomy (MIDG) is non-inferior compared with open distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer. However, MIDG bears a learning curve (LC). This study aims to evaluate the number of cases required to surmount the LC (i.e. NLC) in MIDG.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched from inception to August 2022 for studies which reported NLC in MIDG. NLC on reduced-port/single-port MIDG only were separately analysed. Poisson mean (95% confidence interval (CI)) was used to determine NLC. Negative binomial regression was used to compare NLC between laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG) and robotic distal gastrectomy (RDG).

RESULTS

A total of 45 articles with 71 data sets (LDG n=47, RDG n=24) were analysed. There were 7776 patients in total (LDG n=5516, RDG n=2260). Majority of studies were conducted in East Asia (n=68/71). Majority (76.1%) of data sets used non-arbitrary methods of analyses. The overall NLC for RDG was significantly lower compared to LDG (RDG 22.4 (95% CI: 20.4-24.5); LDG 46.7 (95% CI: 44.1-49.4); incidence rate ratio 0.48, p<0.001). The median number of laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) cases prior was 0 (interquartile range (IQR) 0-105) for LDG and 159 (IQR 101-305.3) for RDG. Meta-regression analysis did not show a significant impact prior experience in LG, extent of lymphadenectomy and intracorporeal vs extracorporeal anastomosis had on overall NLC for LDG and RDG.

CONCLUSION

NLC for RDG is shorter compared to LDG, but this may be due to prior experience in LG and ergonomic advantages of RDG.