The learning curve in pancreatic surgery

Safety and feasibility of instituting a robotic pancreas program in the Australian setting: a case series and narrative review

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive pancreatic resection has been gathering interest over the last decade due to the technical demands and high morbidity associated with these typically open procedures. We report our experience with robotic pancreatectomy within an Australian context.

METHODS

All patients undergoing robotic distal pancreatectomy (DP) and pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) at two Australian tertiary academic hospitals between May 2014 and December 2020 were included.

RESULTS

Sixty-two patients underwent robotic pancreatectomy during the study period. Thirty-four patients with a median age of 68 years (range 42-84) were in the PD group whilst the DP group included 28 patients with a median age of 60 years (range 18-78). Thirteen patients (46.4%) in the DP group had spleen-preserving procedures. There were 13 conversions (38.2%) in the PD group whilst 0 conversions occurred in the DP group. The Clavien-Dindo grade ≥III complication rate was 26.4% and 17.9% in the PD and DP groups, respectively. Two deaths (5.9%) occurred within 90-days in the PD group whilst none were observed in the DP group. The median length of hospital stay was 11.5 days (range 4-56) in the PD group and 6 days (range 2-22) in the DP group.

CONCLUSION

Robotic pancreatectomy outcomes at our institution are comparable with international literature demonstrating it is both safe and feasible to perform. With improved access to this platform, robotic pancreas surgery may prove to be the turning point for patients with regards to post-operative complications as more experience is obtained.

Implementing a robotic hepatopancreatobiliary program for new faculty: safety, feasibility and lessons learned

Robotic surgery is increasingly utilized in hepatopancreatobiliary (HPB) surgery, but the learning curve is a substantial obstacle hindering implementation. Comprehensive robotic training can help to surmount this obstacle; however, despite the expansion of robotic training into residency and fellowship programs, limited data are available about how this translates into successful incorporation in faculty practice. All operations performed during the first three years of practice of a surgical oncologist at a tertiary care academic institution were retrospectively reviewed. The surgeon underwent comprehensive robotic training during residency and fellowship. 137 HPB operations were performed during the initial three years of practice. Over 80% were performed robotically each year across a spectrum of HPB procedures with a 6% conversion rate. Median operative time, a metric for operative proficiency and evaluation for a learning curve, was similar throughout the study period for each major operation and below several reported optimized operative time benchmarks. The major complications, defined as a Clavien-Dindo of 3 or more, were similar across the experience and comparable to published series. Comprehensive robotic training in residency and fellowship as well as a dedicated, well-trained operative team allows for early attainment of optimized outcomes in a new HPB robotic practice.

Extending Quality Improvement for Pancreatoduodenectomy Within the High-Volume Setting: The Experience Factor

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the association of a surgeon's experience with postoperative outcomes of pancreatoduodenectomies (PDs) when stratified by Fistula Risk Score (FRS).

BACKGROUND

Centralization is now well-established for pancreatic surgery. Nevertheless, the benefits of individual surgeon's experience in high-volume settings remain undefined.

METHODS

Pancreatoduodenectomies performed by 82 surgeons across 18 international specialty institutions (median: 140 PD/year) were analyzed. Surgeon cumulative PD volume was linked with postoperative outcomes through multivariable models, adjusted for patient/operative characteristics and the FRS. Then, surgeon experience was also stratified by the 10, previously defined, most clinically impactful scenarios for clinically relevant pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF) development.

RESULTS

Of 8189 PDs, 18.7% suffered severe complications (Accordion≥3), 4.8% were reoperated upon and 2.2% expired. Although the most experienced surgeons (top-quartile; >525 career PDs) more often operated on riskier cases, their experience was significantly associated with declines in CR-POPF ( P <0.001), severe complications ( P =0.008), reoperations ( P <0.001), and length of stay (LOS) ( P <0.001)-accentuated even more in the most impactful FRS scenarios (2830 patients). Risk-adjusted models indicate male sex, increasing age, ASA class, and FRS, but not surgeon experience, as being associated with severe complications, failure-to-rescue, and mortality. Instead, upper-echelon experience demonstrates significant reductions in CR-POPF (OR 0.66), reoperations (OR 0.64), and LOS (OR 0.65) in moderate-to-high fistula risk circumstances (FRS≥3, 68% of cases).

CONCLUSIONS

At specialty institutions, major morbidity, mortality, and failure-to-rescue are primarily associated with baseline patient characteristics, while cumulative surgical experience impacts pancreatic fistula occurrence and its attendant effects for most higher-risk pancreatoduodenectomies. These data also suggest an extended proficiency curve exists for this operation.

Effect of robotic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy on postoperative length of hospital stay and complications for pancreatic head or periampullary tumours: a multicentre, open-label randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The flexibility of the robotic system in resection and reconstruction provides potential benefits in pancreaticoduodenectomy. Increasingly, robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) has been reported with favourable outcomes, but high-level evidence is still scarce. We aimed to compare the short-term postoperative outcomes of RPD with those of open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD), and hypothesised that postoperative length of hospital stay would be shorter after RPD than after OPD.

METHODS

This multicentre, open-label randomised controlled trial was conducted at three high-volume hospitals in China. Patients were considered for participation in this trial if they were aged 18-75 years, had a resectable benign, premalignant, or malignant tumour in the pancreatic head or periampullary region; and were suitable for both RPD and OPD. Patients with distant metastases were excluded. Block randomisation was done with random block sizes of four, stratified by centre. Allocation was concealed via individual, sequentially numbered, opaque sealed envelopes. Eligible patients were randomly assigned to the RPD group or the OPD group in a 1:1 ratio by a masked research assistant. Surgeons and patients were not masked to trial group, but data collectors, postoperative outcome assessors, and data analysts were. All patients underwent RPD or OPD according to previously reported techniques. Participating surgeons had surpassed the learning curves of at least 40 RPD and 60 OPD procedures. The primary outcome was postoperative length of hospital stay, which was analysed in the modified intention-to-treat (mITT) population. This trial is registered with the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2200056809) and is complete.

FINDINGS

Between March 5 and Dec 20, 2022, 292 patients were screened for eligibility, of whom 164 were enrolled and randomly assigned to the RPD group (n=82) or the OPD group (n=82). 161 patients who underwent surgical resection were included in the mITT analysis (81 in the RPD group and 80 in the OPD group). 94 (58%) participants were male and 67 (42%) were female. Postoperative length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in the RPD group than in the OPD group (median 11·0 days [IQR 9·0 to 19·5] vs 13·5 days [11·5 to 18·0]; median difference -2·0 [95% CI -4·0 to 0·0]; p=0·029). During a follow-up period of 90 days, six (7%) of 81 patients in the RPD group and five (6%) of 80 patients in the OPD group required readmission. Reasons for readmission were intra-abdominal haemorrhage (one in each group), vomiting (two in the RPD group and one in the OPD group), electrolyte disturbance (one in each group), and fever (two in each group). There were two (1%) in-hospital deaths within 90 days of surgery, one in each group. The postoperative 90-day mortality rate (difference -0·02% [-5·6 to 5·5]; p=1·00) and the incidence of severe complications (ie, Clavien-Dindo grade ≥3; difference -1·5% [-14·5 to 11·4]; p=0·82) were similar between the two groups.

INTERPRETATION

For surgeons who had passed the learning curve, RPD was safe and feasible with the advantage of shorter postoperative length of hospital stay than OPD. Future research should focus on the medium-term and long-term outcomes between RPD and OPD.

FUNDING

None.

The Learning Curve for Pancreaticoduodenectomy: The Experience of a Single Surgeon

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is a complex and high-skill demanding procedure often associated with significant morbidity and mortality. However, the results have improved over the past two decades. However, there is a paucity of research concerning the learning curve for PD. Our aim was to report the outcomes of 100 consecutive PDs representing a single surgeon's learning curve and to depict the factors that influenced the learning process.

METHODS

We reviewed the first 121 PDs performed at our academic center (2013-2019) by a single surgeon; 110 were PDs (5 laparoscopic and 105 open) and 11 were total PDs (1 laparoscopic and 10 open). Subsequent statistics was performed on the first 100 PDs, with attention paid to the learning curve and survival rate at 5 years. The data were analyzed comparing the first 50 cases (Group 1) to the last 50 cases (Group 2).

RESULTS

The most frequent histopathological tumor type was pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (50%). A total of 39% of patients had preoperative biliary drainage and 45% presented with positive biliary cultures. The preferred reconstruction technique included pancreaticogastrostomy (99%), in situ hepaticojejunostomy (70%), and precolic gastro-jejunal anastomosis (88%). Postoperative complications included biliary fistula (1%), pancreatic fistula (8%), pancreatic stump bleeding (4%), and delayed gastric emptying (13%). The mean operative time decreased after the first 50 cases (p < 0.001) and blood loss after 60 cases (p = 0.046). R1 resections lowered after 25 cases (p = 0.025). Vascular resections (17%) did not influence the rate of complications (p = 0.8). The survival rate at 5 years for pancreatic adenocarcinoma was 32.93%.

CONCLUSIONS

Outcomes improve as surgeon experience increases, with proper training being the most important factor for minimizing the impact of the learning curve over the postoperative complications. Analyzing the learning curve from the perspective of a single surgeon is mandatory for accurate statistical results and interpretation.

The learning curve for laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy by a proficient laparoscopic surgeon: a retrospective study at a single center

BACKGROUND

To explore the learning curve of single center laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) and evaluate the safety and efficacy of the operation at different stages.

METHODS

A detailed review was conducted on the clinical data of 120 cases of laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy performed by the same surgeon between June 2018 and June 2022. Cases that did not provide insights into the learning curve of the procedure were excluded. The cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis and the best fitting curve methods were employed to delineate the learning curve based on operation time and intraoperative blood loss. The study further evaluated the number of surgeries required to traverse the learning curve. Outcome measures, including operation time, intraoperative blood loss, length of stay, complications, and other relevant indicators, were extracted and compared across different phases of the learning curve.

RESULT

The maximum turning point of the fitting curve was found in 35 cases by the cumulative sum method of operation time, after which the learning curve could be considered to have passed. The fitting curve obtained by the cumulative sum method of intraoperative blood loss was stable in 30 cases and proficient in 60 cases, which was basically consistent with the fitting curve of operation time. Taking 35 cases as the boundary, the learning curve is divided into learning improvement stage and mastering stage. There was no statistical significance in the general data of the two stage patients (P > 0.05). Hospitalization days decreased from 19 to 15 days (P < 0.05);Pancreatic fistula decreased from 20.0% of grade B and 8.6% of grade C to 7.1% of grade B and 3.5% of grade C (P < 0.05), and the operative time decreased from (376.9 ± 48.2) minutes to (294.4 ± 18.7) minutes (P < 0.05). Intraoperative blood loss decreased from 375 to 241 ml (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Thirty-five patients with LPD can reach the proficiency stage and the perioperative indexes can be improved.

Pancreatojejunostomy: standing on the shoulders of giants. A single centre retrospective analysis

Gaining experience in pancreatic surgery could be demanding especially when minimally invasive approach is used. Pancreatojejunostomy (PJ) is one of the most critical steps during pancreatoduodenectomy (PD). Our aim was to investigate the impact of a surgeon's experience in performing PJ, especially in a subgroup of patients undergoing laparoscopic PD (LPD). Data of consecutive patients undergoing PD from 2017 to 2022 were prospectively collected and retrospectively analyzed. Patients were divided into two groups: M group included patients in which PJ was performed by an experienced surgeon, D group included those receiving PJ by a less experienced one. The groups were compared in terms of postoperative outcomes. 187 patients were selected (157 in group M and 30 in group D). The cohorts differed in terms of median age (68 vs 74 years, p = 0.016), and previous abdominal surgery (41.4% vs 66.7%, p = 0.011), while no difference was found regarding risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF). The groups did not differ in terms of surgical outcomes. POPF rate was 15.9% and 10% in the M and D group (p = 0.578), respectively. Among patients undergoing laparoscopic PJ POPF rate was 16.0% and 17.7% in the M and D group (p = 0.867), respectively, without difference. No difference was found in terms of POPF in patients undergoing PD independently from the surgeon who performed the PJ, even during LPD. Moderate/high FRS, BMI > 30 kg/m2 and male sex, but not the surgeon who performed the PJ anastomosis, were independent predictors of POPF.

Teaching modern pancreatic surgery: close relationship between centralization, innovation, and dissemination of care

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic surgery is increasingly moving towards centralization in high-volume centres, supported by evidence on the volume-outcome relationship. At the same time, minimally invasive pancreatic surgery is becoming more and more established worldwide, and interest in new techniques, such as robotic pancreatoduodenectomy, is growing. Such recent innovations are reshaping modern pancreatic surgery, but they also represent new challenges for surgical training in its current form.

METHODS

This narrative review presents a chosen selection of literature, giving a picture of the current state of training in pancreatic surgery, together with the authors' own views, and in the context of centralization and innovation towards minimally invasive techniques.

RESULTS

Centralization of pancreatic surgery at high-volume centres, volume-outcome relationships, innovation through minimally invasive technologies, learning curves in both traditional and minimally invasive surgery, and standardized training paths are the different, but deeply interconnected, topics of this article. Proper training is essential to ensure quality of care, but innovation and centralization may represent challenges to overcome with new training models.

CONCLUSION

Innovations in pancreatic surgery are introduced with the aim of increasing the quality of care. However, their successful implementation is deeply dependent on dissemination and standardization of surgical training, adapted to fit in the changing landscape of modern pancreatic surgery.

Injury characteristics and predictors of mortality in patients undergoing pancreatic excision after abdominal trauma: A National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB) study

Pancreatic tumors and pancreatitis are the main indications for pancreatic excision (PE). However, little is known about this type of intervention in the context of traumatic injuries. Surgical care for traumatic pancreatic injuries is challenging because of the location of the organ and the lack of information on trauma mechanisms, vital signs, hospital deposition characteristics, and associated injuries. This study examined the demographics, vital signs, associated injuries, clinical outcomes, and predictors of in-hospital mortality in patients with abdominal trauma who had undergone PE. Following the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines, we analyzed the National Trauma Data Bank and identified patients who underwent PE for penetrating or blunt trauma after an abdominal injury. Patients with significant injuries in other regions (abbreviated injury scale score ≥ 2) were excluded. Of the 403 patients who underwent PE, 232 had penetrating trauma (PT), and 171 had blunt trauma (BT). The concomitant splenic injury was more prevalent in the BT group; however, the frequency of splenectomy was comparable between groups. In particular, concomitant kidney, small intestine, stomach, colon, and liver injuries were more common in the PT group (all P < .05). Most injuries were observed in the pancreatic body and tail regions. The trauma mechanisms also differed between the groups, with motor vehicles accounting for most of the injuries in the BT group and gunshots accounting for most of the injuries in the PT group. In the PT group, major liver lacerations were approximately 3 times more common (P < .001). The in-hospital mortality rate was 12.4%, with no major differences between the PT and BT groups. Furthermore, there was no difference between BT and PT with respect to the location of the injuries in the pancreas, with the pancreatic tail and body accounting for almost 65% of injuries. Systolic blood pressure, Glasgow Coma Scale score, age, and major liver laceration were revealed by logistic regression as independent predictors of mortality, although trauma mechanisms and intent were not linked to mortality risk.

Surgical skills assessment of pancreaticojejunostomy using a simulator may predict patient outcomes: A multicenter prospective observational study

BACKGROUND

Pancreatoduodenectomy, an advanced surgical procedure with a high complication rate, requires surgical skill in performing pancreaticojejunostomy, which correlates with operative outcomes. We aimed to analyze the correlation between pancreaticojejunostomy assessment conducted in a simulator environment and the operating room and patient clinical outcomes.

METHODS

We recruited 30 surgeons (with different experience levels in pancreatoduodenectomy) from 11 institutes. Three trained blinded raters assessed the videos of the pancreaticojejunostomy procedure performed in the operating room using a simulator according to an objective structured assessment of technical skill and a newly developed pancreaticojejunostomy assessment scale. The correlations between the assessment score of the pancreaticojejunostomy performed in the operating room and using the simulator and between each assessment score and patient outcomes were calculated. The participants were also surveyed regarding various aspects of the simulator as a training tool.

RESULTS

There was no correlation between the average score of the pancreaticojejunostomy performed in the operating room and that in the simulator environment (r = 0.047). Pancreaticojejunostomy scores using the simulator were significantly lower in patients with postoperative pancreatic fistula than in those without postoperative pancreatic fistula (P = .05). Multivariate analysis showed that pancreaticojejunostomy assessment scores were independent factors in postoperative pancreatic fistula (P = .09). The participants highly rated the simulator and considered that it had the potential to be used for training.

CONCLUSION

There was no correlation between pancreaticojejunostomy surgical performance in the operating room and the simulation environment. Surgical skills evaluated in the simulation setting could predict patient surgical outcomes.

Perioperative and Oncological Outcomes of Robotic Versus Open Pancreaticoduodenectomy in Low-Risk Surgical Candidates: A Multicenter Propensity Score-Matched Study

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to perform a multicenter comparison between robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD).

BACKGROUND

Previous comparisons of RPD versus OPD have only been carried out in small, single-center studies of variable quality.

METHODS

Consecutive patients who underwent RPD (n = 1032) or OPD (n = 1154) at 7 centers in China between July 2012 and July 2020 were included. A 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) was performed.

RESULTS

After PSM, 982 patients in each group were enrolled. The RPD group had significantly lower estimated blood loss (EBL) (190.0 vs 260.0 mL; P < 0.001), and a shorter postoperative 1length of hospital stay (LOS) (12.0 (9.0-16.0) days vs 14.5 (11.0-19.0) days; P < 0.001) than the OPD group. There were no significant differences in operative time, major morbidity including clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF), bile leakage, delayed gastric emptying, postoperative pancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH), reoperation, readmission or 90-day mortality rates. Multivariable analysis showed R0 resection, CR-POPF, PPH and reoperation to be independent risk factors for 90-day mortality. Subgroup analysis on patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) (n = 326 in each subgroup) showed RPD had advantages over OPD in EBL and postoperative LOS. There were no significant differences in median disease-free survival (15.2 vs 14.3 months, P = 0.94) or median overall survival (24.2 vs 24.1 months, P = 0.88) between the 2 subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

RPD was comparable to OPD in feasibility and safety. For patients with PDAC, RPD resulted in similar oncologic and survival outcomes as OPD.

The PD-ROBOSCORE: A difficulty score for robotic pancreatoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

Difficulty scoring systems are important for the safe, stepwise implementation of new procedures. We designed a retrospective observational study for building a difficulty score for robotic pancreatoduodenectomy.

METHODS

The difficulty score (PD-ROBOSCORE) aims at predicting severe postoperative complications after robotic pancreatoduodenectomy. The PD-ROBOSCORE was developed in a training cohort of 198 robotic pancreatoduodenectomies and was validated in an international multicenter cohort of 686 robotic pancreatoduodenectomies. Finally, all centers tested the model during the early learning curve (n = 300). Growing difficulty levels (low, intermediate, high) were defined using cut-off values set at the 33rd and 66th percentile (NCT04662346).

RESULTS

Factors included in the final multivariate model were a body mass index of ≥25 kg/m² for males and ≥30 kg/m² for females (odds ratio:2.39; P < .0001), borderline resectable tumor (odd ratio:1.98; P < .0001), uncinate process tumor (odds ratio:1.69; P < .0001), pancreatic duct size <4 mm (odds ratio:1.59; P < .0001), American Society of Anesthesiologists class ≥3 (odds ratio:1.59; P < .0001), and hepatic artery originating from the superior mesenteric artery (odds ratio:1.43; P < .0001). In the training cohort, the absolute score value (odds ratio = 1.13; P = .0089) and difficulty groups (odds ratio = 2.35; P = .041) predicted severe postoperative complications. In the multicenter validation cohort, the absolute score value predicted severe postoperative complications (odds ratio = 1.16, P < .001), whereas the difficulty groups did not (odds ratio = 1.94, P = .082). In the learning curve cohort, both absolute score value (odds ratio:1.078, P = .04) and difficulty groups (odds ratio: 2.25, P = .017) predicted severe postoperative complications. Across all cohorts, a PD-ROBOSCORE of ≥12.51 doubled the risk of severe postoperative complications. The PD-ROBOSCORE score also predicted operative time, estimated blood loss, and vein resection. The PD-ROBOSCORE predicted postoperative pancreatic fistula, delayed gastric emptying, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage, and postoperative mortality in the learning curve cohort.

CONCLUSION

The PD-ROBOSCORE predicts severe postoperative complications after robotic pancreatoduodenectomy. The score is readily available via www.pancreascalculator.com.

Trends in pancreatic surgery experience in general surgery residency in the US, 1990–2021

BACKGROUND

We hypothesized a decline in resident pancreatic operative experience. The study assesses trends in that experience since 1990.

METHODS

Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) national case log data of general surgery residency graduates from 1990 to 2021 were reviewed. Collected and analyzed were the mean and median total number of pancreatic operations per resident, the mean number of specific case types performed, and the annual number of residency graduates. For selected procedures, the mean number of cases by resident role (Surgeon-Chief and Surgeon-Junior) was also analyzed.

RESULTS

Both the mean and median total number of resident pancreatic operations has declined since 2009 as have the mean number of several specific pancreatic case types, including resections. The annual number of residency graduates has significantly increased since 1990, and particularly since 2009.

CONCLUSIONS

Resident volume in pancreatic operations has significantly declined over the last decade.

A method for identifying the learning curve for the surgical stabilization of rib fractures

BACKGROUND

Surgical stabilization of rib fractures (SSRF) is an accepted efficacious treatment modality for patients with severe chest wall injuries. Despite increased adoption of SSRF, surgical learning curves are unknown. We hypothesized intraoperative duration could define individual SSRF learning curves.

METHODS

Consecutive SSRF operations between January 2017 and December 2021 at a single institution were reviewed. Operative time, as measured from incision until skin closure, was evaluated by cumulative sum methodology using a range of acceptable "missteps" to determine the learning curves. Misstep was defined by extrapolation of accumulated operative time data.

RESULTS

Eighty-three patients underwent SSRF by three surgeons during this retrospective review. Average operative times ranged from 135 minutes for two plates to 247 minutes for seven plates. Using polynomial regression of average operative times, 75 minutes for general procedural requirements plus 35 minutes per plate were derived as the anticipated operative times per procedure. Cumulative sum analyses using 5%, 10%, 15%, and 20% incident rates for not meeting expected operative times, or "missteps" were used. An institutional learning curve between 15 and 55 SSRF operations was identified assuming a 90% performance rate. An individual learning curve of 15 to 20 operations assuming a 90% performance rate was observed. After this period, operative times stabilized or decreased for surgeons A, B, and C.

CONCLUSION

The institutional and individual surgeon learning curves for SSRF appears to steadily improve after 15 to 20 operations using operative time as a surrogate for performance. The implementation of SSRF programs by trauma/acute care surgeons is feasible with an attainable learning curve.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic/Care Management; Level IV.

Whipple’s pancreaticoduodenectomy at a resource-poor, low-volume center in Trinidad and Tobago

BACKGROUND

Many authorities advocate for Whipple’s procedures to be performed in high-volume centers, but many patients in poor developing nations cannot access these centers. We sought to determine whether clinical outcomes were acceptable when Whipple’s procedures were performed in a low-volume, resource-poor setting in the West Indies.

AIM

To study outcomes of Whipple’s procedures in a pancreatic unit in the West Indies over an eight-year period from June 1, 2013 to June 30, 2021.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study of all patients undergoing Whipple’s procedures in a pancreatic unit in the West Indies over an eight-year period from June 1, 2013 to June 30, 2021.

RESULTS

This center performed an average of 11.25 procedures per annum. There were 72 patients in the final study population at a mean age of 60.2 years, with 52.7% having American Society of Anesthesiologists scores ≥ III and 54.1% with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group scores ≥ 2. Open Whipple’s procedures were performed in 70 patients and laparoscopic assisted procedures in 2. Portal vein resection/reconstruction was performed in 19 (26.4%) patients. In patients undergoing open procedures there was 367 ± 54.1 min mean operating time, 1394 ± 656.8 mL mean blood loss, 5.24 ± 7.22 d mean intensive care unit stay and 15.1 ± 9.53 d hospitalization. Six (8.3%) patients experienced minor morbidity, 10 (14%) major morbidity and there were 4 (5.5%) deaths.

CONCLUSION

This paper adds to the growing body of evidence that volume alone should not be used as a marker of quality for patients requiring Whipple’s procedures. Low volume centers in resource poor nations can achieve good short-term outcomes. This is largely due to the process of continuous, adaptive learning by the entire hospital.

Whipple’s operation with a modified centralization concept: A model in low-volume Caribbean centers

Conventional data suggest that complex operations, such as a pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD), should be limited to high volume centers. However, this is not practical in small, resource-poor countries in the Caribbean. In these settings, patients have no option but to have their PDs performed locally at low volumes, occasionally by general surgeons. In this paper, we review the evolution of the concept of the high-volume center and discuss the feasibility of applying this concept to low and middle-income nations. Specifically, we discuss a modification of this concept that may be considered when incorporating PD into low-volume and resource-poor countries, such as those in the Caribbean. This paper has two parts. First, we performed a literature review evaluating studies published on outcomes after PD in high volume centers. The data in the Caribbean is then examined and we discuss the incorporation of this operation into resource-poor hospitals with modifications of the centralization concept. In the authors’ opinions, most patients who require PD in the Caribbean do not have realistic opportunities to have surgery in high-volume centers in developed countries. In these settings, their only options are to have their operations in the resource-poor, low-volume settings in the Caribbean. However, post-operative outcomes may be improved, despite low-volumes, if a modified centralization concept is encouraged.

Robotische Pankreaschirurgie – Lernkurve und Etablierung

Minimalinvasive Resektionstechniken zur Behandlung verschiedener Pathologien des Pankreas sind potenziell vorteilhaft für die behandelten Patienten in Bezug auf Rekonvaleszenzzeit und postoperative Morbidität, stellen jedoch eine besondere technische Herausforderung für den behandelnden Chirurgen dar. Der Einzug der robotischen Technik in die Viszeralchirurgie bietet eine prinzipielle Möglichkeit zur weitreichenden Verbreitung minimalinvasiver Verfahren in der Pankreaschirurgie.

Ziel dieser Arbeit war es, die Entwicklungsmöglichkeiten der robotischen Pankreaschirurgie in Deutschland zu überprüfen. Datengrundlage sind die Qualitätsberichte der Krankenhäuser der Jahre 2015–2019 kombiniert mit einer selektiven Literaturrecherche.

Die Anzahl der vorliegenden Qualitätsberichte reduzierte sich von 2015 bis 2019 von 1635 auf 1594. Im Median führten 96 Kliniken 11–20, 56 Kliniken 21–50 und 15 Kliniken mehr als 50 Pankreaskopfresektionen jährlich durch. Bei den Linksresektionen waren es 35 Kliniken mit 11–20, 14 Kliniken mit 21–50 und 2 Kliniken mit mehr als 50 Eingriffen. Unter Berücksichtigung aller Kliniken, die 5 oder mehr Linksresektionen pro Jahr durchführen, wurden an nur 29 Kliniken minimalinvasive Verfahren eingesetzt. Der Anteil an laparoskopischen Linksresektionen über 50% wurde an nur 7 Kliniken beschrieben.

Nach Datenlage in der Literatur divergieren die Lernkurven für die robotische Pankreaslinks- und Pankreaskopfresektion. Während die Lernkurve für die robotische Pankreaslinksresektion nach etwa 20 Eingriffen durchlaufen ist, hat die Lernkurve für die robotische Pankreaskopfresektion mehrere Plateaus, die etwa nach 30, 100 und 250 Eingriffen erreicht werden.

Aufgrund der dezentralen Struktur der Pankreaschirurgie in Deutschland scheint ein flächendeckendes Angebot robotischer Verfahren aktuell in weiter Ferne. Insbesondere die Etablierung der robotischen Pankreaskopfresektion wird zunächst Zentren mit entsprechend hoher Fallzahl vorbehalten bleiben.

Learning Curves in Open, Laparoscopic, and Robotic Pancreatic Surgery: A Systematic Review and Proposal of a Standardization

Objective

To depict and analyze learning curves for open, laparoscopic, and robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) and distal pancreatectomy (DP).

Background

Formal training is recommended for safe introduction of pancreatic surgery but definitions of learning curves vary and have not been standardized.

Methods

A systematic search on PubMed, Web of Science, and CENTRAL databases identified studies on learning curves in pancreatic surgery. Primary outcome was the number needed to reach the learning curve as defined by the included studies. Secondary outcomes included endpoints defining learning curves, methods of analysis (statistical/arbitrary), and classification of learning phases.

Results

Out of 1115 articles, 66 studies with 14,206 patients were included. Thirty-five studies (53%) based the learning curve analysis on statistical calculations. Most often used parameters to define learning curves were operative time (n = 51), blood loss (n = 17), and complications (n = 10). The number of procedures to surpass a first phase of learning curve was 30 (20-50) for open PD, 39 (11-60) for laparoscopic PD, 25 (8-100) for robotic PD (P = 0.521), 16 (3-17) for laparoscopic DP, and 15 (5-37) for robotic DP (P = 0.914). In a three-phase model, intraoperative parameters improved earlier (first to second phase: operating time -15%, blood loss -29%) whereas postoperative parameters improved later (second to third phase: complications -46%, postoperative pancreatic fistula -48%). Studies with higher sample sizes showed higher numbers of procedures needed to overcome the learning curve (rho = 0.64, P < 0.001).

Conclusions

This study summarizes learning curves for open-, laparoscopic-, and robotic pancreatic surgery with different definitions, analysis methods, and confounding factors. A standardized reporting of learning curves and definition of phases (competency, proficiency, mastery) is desirable and proposed.

Robotic central pancreatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Central pancreatectomy is usually performed to excise lesions of the neck or proximal body of the pancreas. In the last decade, thanks to the advent of novel technologies, surgeons have started to perform this procedure robotically. This review aims to appraise the results and outcomes of robotic central pancreatectomies (RCP) through a systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

A systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, and Web Of Science identified studies reporting outcomes of RCP. Pooled prevalence rates of postoperative complications and mortality were computed using random-effect modelling.

RESULTS

Thirteen series involving 265 patients were included. In all cases but one, RCP was performed to excise benign or low-grade tumours. Clinically relevant post-operative pancreatic fistula (POPF) occurred in 42.3% of patients. While overall complications were reported in 57.5% of patients, only 9.4% had a Clavien-Dindo score ≥ III. Re-operation was necessary in 0.7% of the patients. New-onset diabetes occurred postoperatively in 0.3% of patients and negligible mortality and open conversion rates were observed.

CONCLUSION

RCP is safe and associated with low perioperative mortality and well preserved postoperative pancreatic function, although burdened by high overall morbidity and POPF rates.

Comparison of robotic and open pancreaticoduodenectomy for primary nonampullary duodenal adenocarcinoma: a retrospective cohort study

PURPOSE

Robotic surgery has been increasingly applied in pancreatic surgery and showed many advantages over conventional open surgery. The robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) is a surgical option for primary nonampullary duodenal adenocarcinoma (PNDA). However, whether RPD is superior to open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) for PNDA has not been reported. The comparative study was designed to analyze the short- and long-term outcomes of RPD versus OPD on patients with PNDA.

METHODS

Demographics, perioperative, and survival outcomes among patients who underwent RPD (n = 49) versus OPD (n = 43) for PNDAs between January 2013 and March 2018 were collected and analyzed RESULTS: Demographic characteristics were comparable between the RPD group and the OPD group. The RPD group demonstrated a decreased estimated blood loss (100 vs. 200 ml, p < 0.001), time to oral intake (4.0 vs. 4.0 days, p = 0.04), and postoperative hospital stay (12.9 vs. 15.0 days, p = 0.01) compared with the OPD group. However, no differences were observed between the two groups in terms of operative time and the rates of major complications, grade B and C POPF, PPH, grade B and C DGE, biliary fistular, reoperation, and 90-day readmission. No patient died within 90 days. There were no significant differences in tumor size, differentiation, TNM stage, number of harvested lymph nodes, and the rates of nerve invasion, lymph node invasion, R0 resection, and the median overall survival between the two groups (p > 0.05) CONCLUSIONS: RPD is a safe, feasible, and effective treatment for PNDA compared with OPD and can be used as an alternative for surgeons in the treatment of PNDA. Further multicenter randomized controlled trials are needed to evaluate the effectiveness of RPD in patients with PNDA.

dV-Trainer vs. da Vinci Simulator: Comparison of Virtual Reality Platforms for Robotic Surgery

BACKGROUND

A virtual reality (VR) curriculum performed on the da Vinci Simulation System (DVSS) was previously shown to be effective in training fellows. The dV-Trainer is a separate platform with similar features to the da Vinci console, but its efficacy and utility versus the DVSS simulator are not well known.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A mastery-based VR curriculum was completed by surgical fellows on the DVSS (2014-2016) and on the dV-Trainer (2016-2018) at a large academic center. Pre-test/post-test scores were used to evaluate performance between the two groups. Data was collected prospectively.

RESULTS

Forty-six fellows enrolled in the curriculum: surgical oncology (n=31), hepatobiliary (n=5), head/neck (n=4), endocrine (n=2), cardiothoracic (n=2), gynecology (n=1) and transplant surgery (n=1). Twenty-four used the DVSS and twenty-two used the dV-Trainer. Compared to the DVSS, the dV-Trainer was associated with lower scores on 2 of 3 VR modules in the pre-test (P=0.027, P<0.001, respectively) and post-test (P=0.021, P<0.001, respectively). Fellows in the dV-Trainer era scored lower on inanimate drills as well. Average VR curriculum score was lower on the dV-Trainer (71.3% vs 83.34%, P<0.001). dV-Trainer users spent more time completing the pre-test and post-test; however, overall simulator time to complete the curriculum was not significantly different (297 vs 231 minutes, P=0.142). Both groups showed improvement in scores after completion of the VR curriculum.

CONCLUSIONS

The dV-Trainer simulator allows for more usability outside the operating room to complete VR modules; however, the DVSS simulator group outperformed the dV-Trainer group on the post-test.

Robotic gastrointestinal surgery: learning curve, educational programs and outcomes

The use of the robotic platform for gastrointestinal surgery was introduced nearly 20 years ago. However, significant growth and advancement has occurred primarily in the last decade. This is due to several advantages over traditional laparoscopic surgery allowing for more complex dissections and reconstructions. Several randomized controlled trials and retrospective reviews have demonstrated equivalent oncologic outcomes compared to open surgery with improved short-term outcomes. Unfortunately, there are currently no universally accepted or implemented training programs for robotic surgery and robotic surgery experience varies greatly. Additionally, several limitations to the robotic platform exist resulting in a distinct learning curve associated with various procedures. Therefore, implementation of robotic surgery requires a multidisciplinary team approach with commitment and investment from clinical faculty, operating room staff and hospital administrators. Additionally, there is a need for wider distribution of educational modules to train more surgeons and reduce the associated learning curve. This article will focus on the implementation of the robotic platform for surgery of the pancreas, stomach, liver, colon and rectum with an emphasis on the associated learning curve, educational platforms to develop proficiency and perioperative outcomes.

The Role of Simulation in Attaining Proficiency in Minimally Invasive Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery

The implementation of robotic surgery in the field of hepato-pancreato-biliary (HPB) has been a slow but significant process. HPB procedures offer a unique challenge when for new technologies, as the surgeries themselves are complex, with long learning curves. Yet the benefits of the robotic approach for this patient population are notable: decreased length of stay, blood loss, postoperative complications, and improving quality of life. The use of robotic simulation focused curriculum plays a crucial role in mentoring experienced surgeons and surgical trainees. Although further study remains, early studies suggest a structured simulation curriculum decreases time, technical errors, and improves proficiency, ultimately leading to a more expedited and safe implementation of robotic techniques in the HPB field.

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.

Learning curve of three European centers in laparoscopic, hybrid laparoscopic, and robotic pancreatoduodenectomy

INTRODUCTION

There are limited numbers of high-volume centers performing minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) routinely. Several approaches to MIPD have been described. Aim of this analysis was to show the learning curve of three different approaches to MIPD. Focus was on determining the number of cases necessary to obtain proficient level in MIPD.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Retrospective study wherein outcomes of 300 consecutive patients at three centers-at each center the initial 100 consecutive patients undergoing MIPD for malignant and benign tumors of the head of the pancreas and perimpullary area, performed by three experienced surgeons were collected and analyzed.

RESULTS

Overall, 300 patients after MIPD were included: the three different cohorts (laparoscopic n = 100, hybrid n = 100, robotic n = 100). CUSUM analysis of operating time in each center demonstrated that the plateau for laparoscopic PD was n = 61, for hybrid PDes was n = 32 and for robotic PD was n = 68. Median operative time for laparoscopic, hybrid, and robotic approaches was 395 min, 404 min, 510 min, respectively. Intraoperative blood loss for laparoscopic PD, hybrid PD, and robotic PD was 250 ml, 250 ml, and 413 ml, respectively. Delayed gastric emptying occurred 12% in laparoscopic cohort, 10% in hybrid, and 53% in robotic cohort. Major complications (Clavien-Dindo III/IV) rate for laparoscopic PD, hybrid PD, and robotic PD was 32%, 37%, and 22% with 5% death in each cohorts, respectively.

CONCLUSION

This analysis of the learning curve of three European centers found a shorter learning curve with hybrid PD as compared to laparoscopic and robotic PD. In implementation of a MIPD program, a stepwise approach might be beneficial.

Pancreatic surgery is a safe teaching model for tutoring residents in the setting of a high-volume academic hospital: a retrospective analysis of surgical and pathological outcomes

BACKGROUND

Academic hospitals must train future surgeons, but whether residents could negatively affect the outcomes of major procedures is a matter of concern. The aim of this study is to assess if pancreatic surgery is a safe teaching model.

METHODS

Outcomes of 1230 major pancreatic resections performed at a high-volume pancreatic teaching hospital between 2015 and 2018 were compared according to the first surgeon type, attending vs resident.

RESULTS

Residents performed a selection of 132 (16%) pancreaticoduodenectomies (PD) and 46 (11%) distal pancreatectomies (DP). For PD, pancreatic fistula (25% vs 0, p < 0.001), biliary fistula (7.1% vs 3.5%, p = 0.04) and operative time (400 vs 390 min, p < 0.001) were lower for residents but post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage was higher (20.5% vs 13% p = 0.024). For DP, pancreatic fistula rate was lower for residents (31.7% vs 17.5% p = 0.046). There was no difference in terms of lymph nodes retrieval both for PDs and DPs, while the R1 resections were more frequent among PDs performed by attending surgeons (31.5% vs 15.7%, p = 0.023).

CONCLUSION

The active participation of residents does not negatively affect outcomes of major pancreatic resections in a high-volume center. By means of case selection and continuous tutoring, pancreatic surgery represents a safe and valid teaching model.

Association of Mentorship and a Formal Robotic Proficiency Skills Curriculum With Subsequent Generations' Learning Curve and Safety for Robotic Pancreaticoduodenectomy

Importance

Learning curves are unavoidable for practicing surgeons when adopting new technologies. However, patient outcomes are worse in the early stages of a learning curve vs after mastery. Therefore, it is critical to find a way to decrease these learning curves without compromising patient safety.

Objective

To evaluate the association of mentorship and a formal proficiency-based skills curriculum with the learning curves of 3 generations of surgeons and to determine the association with increased patient safety.

Design, Setting, and Participants

All consecutive robotic pancreaticoduodenectomies (RPDs) performed at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center between 2008 and 2017 were included in this study. Surgeons were split into generations based on their access to mentorship and a proficiency-based skills curriculum. The generations are (1) no mentorship or curriculum, (2) mentorship but no curriculum, and (3) mentorship and curriculum. Univariable and multivariable analyses were used to create risk-adjusted learning curves by surgical generation and to analyze factors associated with operating room time, complications, and fellows completing the full resection. The participants include surgical oncology attending surgeons and fellows who participated in an RPD at University of Pittsburgh Medical Center between 2008 and 2017.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was operating room time (ORT). Secondary outcomes were postoperative pancreatic fistula and Clavien-Dindo classification higher than grade 2.

Results

We identified 514 RPDs completed between 2008 and 2017, of which 258 (50.2%) were completed by first-generation surgeons, 151 (29.3%) were completed by the second generation, and 82 (15.9%) were completed by the third generation. There was no statistically significant difference between groups with respect to age (66.3-67.3 years; P = .52) or female sex (n = 34 [41.5%] vs n = 121 [46.9%]; P = .60). There was a significant decrease in ORT (P < .001), from 450.8 minutes for the first-generation surgeons to 348.6 minutes for the third generation. Additionally, across generations, Clavien-Dindo classification higher than grade 2 (n = 74 [28.7%] vs n = 30 [9.9%] vs n = 12 [14.6%]; P = .01), conversion rates (n = 18 [7.0%] vs n = 7 [4.6%] vs n = 0; P = .006), and estimated blood loss (426 mL vs 288.6 mL vs 254.7 mL; P < .001) decreased significantly with subsequent generations. There were no significant differences in postoperative pancreatic fistula.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this study, ORT, conversion rates, and estimated blood loss decreased across generations without a concomitant rise in adverse patient outcomes. These findings suggest that a proficiency-based curriculum coupled with mentorship allows for the safe introduction of less experienced surgeons to RPD without compromising patient safety.

Current state of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery

The growth in minimally invasive pancreatic surgery (MIPS) has been accompanied by a recent surge in evidence-based data available to analyze patient outcomes. A small complement of randomized control trials as well as a multitude of observational studies have demonstrated both consistent similarities and differences between MIPS and the open approach, although abundant questions remain. This review highlights the available literature and emphasizes key factors for evaluating laparoscopic and robotic pancreatic surgery.

Centralisation of Pancreatoduodenectomy in India: Where Do We Stand?

BACKGROUND

The volume-outcome relationship dictates that high-volume centres lead to improved patient outcomes after pancreatoduodenectomy (PD). We conducted a retrospective review to fathom the situation in India for PD and whether referral to high-volume centres would make a positive impact.

METHOD

A systematic literature search in MEDLINE was performed, and all articles published from Indian centres from 01.03.2008 to 30.11.2019 were scrutinised. Any series with less than 20 patients, case reports, abstracts, unpublished data and personal communications were excluded.

RESULTS

A total of 36 unique series including 6226 patients from 24 institutes across India were identified. Amongst the 24 institutes, 2 institutes reported less than 10 cases/year, 11 reported 10-25 cases/year and 11 reported ≥26 cases/year. Overall perioperative morbidity was 42.4%, 43.4% and 41% for centres doing <10, 10-25 and ≥26 cases/year, respectively. Operative mortality also improved with increasing number of cases/year (5.1% vs. 6.6% vs. 3.2%, respectively).

CONCLUSION

With increasing volume of cases per year, trend towards improved PD outcomes is observed. To optimise the use of healthcare facilities, it would be pragmatic to consider building an organised referral system for complex surgeries to deliver unsurpassed patient care with maximum utilisation of the available healthcare infrastructure.

Facility volume-survival relationship in patients with early-stage pancreatic adenocarcinoma treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by pancreatoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

There is evidence that neoadjuvant therapy is associated with improved survival compared with upfront pancreatectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Treatment at high-volume pancreatic surgery centers is associated with improved short-term postoperative outcomes compared with low-volume centers. We compared overall survival of patients with early-stage pancreatic adenocarcinoma who received neoadjuvant therapy before resection stratified by facility volume.

METHODS

Patients with clinical T0 to T2 pancreatic adenocarcinoma who received neoadjuvant therapy before pancreatoduodenectomy were identified in the National Cancer Database (2010-2016). High-volume pancreatic surgery centers performed ≥36 pancreatectomies/year. Patients were matched 1:1 by propensity score. Pathologic outcomes, postoperative outcomes, and overall survival were compared.

RESULTS

Before matching, 1,449 patients were treated at low-volume centers and 250 at high-volume pancreatic surgery centers. After matching, there were 177 patients per group. High-volume pancreatic surgery centers were more commonly academic/research facilities (99.4% vs 54.0%; P < .001), and patients traveled greater distances (65 vs 13 miles; P < .001). Time from diagnosis to neoadjuvant therapy and surgery was similar. Treatment at high-volume pancreatic surgery centers was associated with shorter duration of stay (7 vs 8 days; P = .003) and lower 90-day mortality rate after pancreatoduodenectomy (0.0% vs 5.0%; P = .01). Patients treated at high-volume pancreatic surgery centers had improved overall survival (36.3 vs 29.4 months; P = .03; hazard ratio 0.73). On subset analysis of academic/research facilities, high-volume pancreatic surgery centers remained associated with shorter duration of stay, lower 90-day mortality, and greater overall survival.

CONCLUSION

The majority of patients treated with neoadjuvant therapy for early-stage pancreatic adenocarcinoma received care at low-volume centers. Treatment at high-volume pancreatic surgery centers was associated with improved overall survival and short-term postoperative outcomes.

Simulation training in pancreatico-jejunostomy using an inanimate biotissue model improves the technical skills of hepatobiliary-pancreatic surgical fellows

Background

Technical proficiency of the operating surgeons is one of the most important factors in the safe performance of pancreaticoduodenectomy. The objective of the present study was to investigate whether surgical simulation of pancreatico-jejunostomy (PJ) using an inanimate biotissue model could improve the technical proficiency of hepato-biliary pancreatic (HBP) surgical fellows.

Methods

The biotissue drill consisted of sewing biotissues to simulate PJ. The drill was repeated a total of five times by each of the participant surgical fellows. The improvement of the surgical fellows’ technical proficiency was evaluated by the supervisor surgeons using the Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills (OSATS) scale.

Results

Eight HBP surgical fellows completed all the 5 drills. Both the OSATS 25 score and OSATS summary score, assessed by the two supervisor surgeons, improved steadily with repeated execution of the PJ drill. The average OSATS score, as assessed by both the supervisor surgeons, improved significantly from the first to the final drill, with a P value of 0.003 and 0.014 for the assessment by the two surgeons, respectively. On the other hand, no chronological alteration was observed in time of procedure (P = 0.788).

Conclusion

Repeated execution of a biotissue PJ drill improved the HBP surgical fellows’ technical proficiency, as evaluated by OSATS. The present study lends support to the evidence that simulation training can contribute to shortening of the time required to negotiate the learning curve for the technique of PJ in the actual operating room.

Supraclavicular Approach for Neurogenic Thoracic Outlet Syndrome: Description of a Learning Curve

BACKGROUND

The supraclavicular exposure represents an alternative approach for thoracic outlet decompression in neurogenic thoracic outlet syndrome with unique access to neurovascular structures. We aimed to evaluate the learning curve for this approach and associated patient outcomes.

METHODS

Patients undergoing first-time, unilateral, supraclavicular thoracic outlet decompression for neurogenic thoracic outlet syndrome were included. Cumulative-sum and linear-spline-regression analyses were used to determine the operative time learning curve. Patients were consecutively organized into early (learning phase) and late (competency) cohorts. Primary endpoints were the operative time learning curve operation number and association of this learning curve on differences in self-reported postoperative symptomatic improvement between early and late cohorts, adjusting for American Society of Anesthesiology classification, body mass index, previous treatment (opioid/neuropathic medication/botulinum-injection), and length of stay.

RESULTS

Among 114 patients, learning curve analyses showed decreasing operative times, plateauing at the 51st operation (ß = -1.63, 95% confidence interval [-2.30, -0.95], P < .001). No periprocedural differences existed between early (operations 1-50) and late (operations 51-114) cohorts. Self-reported 90-day outcomes were similar in early and late cohorts (odds ratio [OR]: 1.60 [0.65, 3.95], P = .31). Mediators of poor self-reported outcomes included increasing American Society of Anesthesiology classification (OR 0.21 [0.08, 0.54], P = .001), failed preoperative botulinum injection (OR 0.15 [0.03, 0.65], P = .01), and increased length of stay (OR 0.40 [0.22, 0.73], P = .003).

CONCLUSIONS

The learning curve for supraclavicular thoracic outlet decompression in neurogenic thoracic outlet syndrome occurred after 51 operations with a trend towards improved 90-day self-reported outcomes from the early to late phases. These findings, along with mediators of poorer outcomes, may aid surgeons in adopting a new approach and counseling patients on expected outcomes.

Formal robotic training diminishes the learning curve for robotic pancreatoduodenectomy: Implications for new programs in complex robotic surgery

INTRODUCTION

The learning curve associated with robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) is a hurdle for new programs to achieve optimal results. Since early analysis, robotic training has recently expanded, and the RPD approach has been refined. The purpose of this study is to examine RPD outcomes for surgeons who implemented a new program after receiving formal RPD training to determine if such training reduces the learning curve.

METHODS

Outcomes for consecutive patients undergoing RPD at a single tertiary institution were compared to optimal RPD benchmarks from a previously reported learning curve analysis. Two surgical oncologists with formal RPD training performed all operations with one surgeon as bedside assistant and the other at the console.

RESULTS

Forty consecutive RPD operations were evaluated. Mean operative time was 354 ± 54 min, and blood loss was 300 ml. Length of stay was 7 days. Three patients (7.5%) underwent conversion to open. Pancreatic fistula affected five patients (12.5%). Operative time was stable over the study and lower than the reported benchmark. These RPD operative outcomes were similar to reported surgeon outcomes after the learning curve.

CONCLUSION

This study suggests formal robotic training facilitates safe and efficient adoption of RPD for new programs, reducing or eliminating the learning curve.

The learning curve for piggyback liver transplantation: identifying factors challenging surgery

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to quantify the learning curve of piggyback liver transplantation and to identify factors that impact the operative time and blood transfusion during the learning curve.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed on consecutive cases of patients' first piggyback liver transplantations that were performed by a single surgeon. The learning curve for the operative time was evaluated using the cumulative sum method.

RESULTS

There were 181, consecutive, first-time piggyback liver transplantations. The median operative time was 345 minutes (range: 180-745 minutes) with a median transfusion rate of 4 packed red blood cell units (range: 0-23 units). The cumulative sum learning curve identified 3 phases: an initial phase (1-70 piggyback liver transplantations), a plateau phase (71-101 piggyback liver transplantations), and a stable phase (102-181 piggyback liver transplantations). Over the 3 phases, there were significant decreases in the median duration of the surgery (388.8 vs 344.8 vs 326.9 minutes; P = .004, P = .0004, P ≤ .0001) and the number of red blood cell units transfused (6.00 vs 3.90 vs 3.71; P = .02, P = .79, P = .0006). Multivariable analysis identified that the following factors impacted the operative time: surgeon experience (P = .00006), previous upper abdominal surgery (P = .01), portocaval shunt fashioning (P = .0003), early portal section (P = .00001), multiple arterial graft reconstruction (P = .03), and the length of the retrohepatic inferior vena covered by segment 1 (P = .0006). Independent risk factors for increased blood loss were surgeon experience (P = .0001), previous upper abdominal surgery (P = .002), the retrohepatic inferior vena cava encirclement by segment 1 (P = .0001), severe portal hypertension (P = .01), early portal section (P = .001), and low prothrombin time (P = .00001).

CONCLUSION

Easily identifiable factors related to recipients (segment 1 morphology, previous upper abdominal surgery, severe portal hypertension) and to surgeon (operative experience, portocaval shunt fashioning, early portal section, and multiple arterial reconstructions) impact operative time and blood loss during the learning curve of piggyback liver transplantation. These factors can be used for grading the difficulties of liver transplantation to tailor the surgical strategy.

Transition from open and laparoscopic to robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy in a UK tertiary referral hepatobiliary and pancreatic centre - Early experience of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

Pancreaticoduodenectomy is performed using an open technique (OPD) as the gold standard. An increase in those performed laparoscopically (LPD) and robotically (RPD) are now reported. We compared the short-term outcomes of RPD cases with LPD and OPD.

METHODS

A retrospective review of a prospectively collected database was undertaken of our first consecutive RPD, our first LPD and consecutive OPD cases. Those requiring venous and/or arterial resection were excluded.

RESULTS

RPD (n = 25) had longer median operating times (461 (IQR 358-564) mins) than LPD (n = 41) (330 (IQR 262.5-397.5) mins) and OPD (n = 37) (330 (IQR 257-403) mins, p < 0.0001). Estimated blood loss and transfusion requirement was less after RPD and LPD compared to OPD (p = 0.012 and p < 0.0001 respectively). No RPD cases required conversion to open operation compared to 24.4% of LPD. Morbidity was comparable with a Clavien Dindo score ≥3 in 20.00%, 24.39% and 18.92% for RPD, LPD and OPD respectively (p = 0.83). Post-operative pancreatic fistula rates were seen in 16.00%, 29.27% and 21.62% of our RPD, LPD and OPD cohorts respectively (p = 0.81). 90-day mortality was seen in 0.97% of the total cohort. Length of hospital stay (LOS) was shorter for RPD compared to both LPD (p = 0.030) and OPD (p = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

RPD is safe to perform with comparable outcomes to LPD and OPD. Further evidence is provided that a randomised controlled trial for PD techniques is required.

The annual AHPBA HPB fellows' course: an analysis of impact and feedback

BACKGROUND

Since 2012, the AHPBA has hosted an annual HPB Fellows' Course at Carolinas Medical Center. All fellows training in an accredited HPB fellowship are eligible to attend. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of this conference and assess possible areas of improvement.

METHODS

The Carolinas Fellows' Course (CFC) is a structured educational activity involving didactics, skills labs, and live case presentations. The course emphasizes minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and intraoperative ultrasound (IOUS) technique. This is a retrospective review of a survey emailed to 95 fellows who have attended the course over a 7-year period.

RESULTS

Fifty-two attendees completed the survey (54.7% response rate). Sixty-eight percent of respondents now practice primarily HPB surgery. Seventy-six percent agreed that the CFC encouraged them to incorporate IOUS into their practice, while 74% were encouraged to incorporate MIS HPB procedures into their practice. Eighty percent felt that the course laid groundwork for long term communication with peers.

CONCLUSION

The study demonstrates that a multisite instructional course can be an effective way to encourage the development of new skills, boost operational confidence, impact real world practices, and foster long term communication and networking among fellows after graduation.

Outcome of robot-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy during initial learning curve versus laparotomy

To analyze the initial learning curve (LC) for robot-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy (RAPD) and compare RAPD during the initial LC with open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) in terms of outcome. This study is a retrospective review of patients who consecutively underwent RAPD and OPD between October 2015 and January 2020 in our hospital. 41 consecutive RAPD cases and 53 consecutive open cases were enrolled for review. Compared with OPD, RAPD required a significantly longer operative time (401.1 ± 127.5 vs. 230.8 ± 44.5 min, P < 0.001) and higher cost (194621 ± 78342 vs. 121874 ± 39973 CNY, P < 0.001). Moreover, compared with the OPD group, the RAPD group revealed a significantly smaller mean number of lymph nodes harvested in malignant cases (15.6 ± 5.9 vs 18.9 ± 7.3, P = 0.025). No statistically significant differences were observed between the two groups in terms of incidence of Clavien-Dindo grade III-V morbidities and 90-day mortality and readmission (P>0.05). In the CUSUM graph, one peak point was observed at the 8th case, after which the operation time began to decrease. LC for RAPD may be less than 30 cases, and RAPD is safe and feasible during the initial LC.

Robotic Pancreaticoduodenectomy Is Associated with Decreased Clinically Relevant Pancreatic Fistulas: a Propensity-Matched Analysis

BACKGROUND

Clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF) after pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) is a major complication that adversely affects recovery. The robotic approach may decrease the incidence of this complication. This propensity-matched analysis evaluates the impact of robotic PD (RPD) on CR-POPF.

METHODS

Patients undergoing PD after the learning curve at a high-volume academic medical center were reviewed. CR-POPF outcomes after open PD (OPD) and RPD were compared. Logistic regression and propensity score matching (PSM) were used to define the independent effect of RPD on CR-POPF.

RESULTS

Of 865 PDs performed over the study period, 405 (46.8%) were OPD and 460 (53.2%) were RPD. RPD was associated with a similar overall POPF rate, but a lower incidence of CR-POPF (6.7% vs. 15.8%, p < 0.001). On multivariate analysis, RPD was an independent predictor of lower CR-POPF (OR 0.278, p < 0.001). Following propensity matching, RPD continued to be protective against the occurrence of CR-POPF (coefficient = - 0.113, p = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This is the largest single-center PSM analysis to evaluate the impact of robotic approach on pancreatoduodenectomy and suggests that RPD can minimize the clinical impact of pancreatic leaks after PD.

Learning curve for pancreatoduodenectomy: can it be generalized?

BACKGROUND

We hypothesized that a learning curve exists for pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) and that the factors that show a learning curve and the degree of improvement over time differ among surgeons.

METHODS

We analysed the outcomes of PD in 300 patients operated by two surgeons between 2001 and 2014; these comprised the first 150 patients operated by each surgeon. Patients operated by each surgeon were classified into three groups according to the chronological sequence of operation (50 patients per group).

RESULTS

For surgeon A, the median operation time (496 versus 454 versus 418 min, P < 0.001) and the mean amount of red blood cell transfusion (3.76 versus 2.76 versus 1.26 packs, P < 0.001) showed a slight but progressive decrease from the first 50 cases to the second and the third 50 cases. For surgeon B, only the operation time, which decreased and ultimately plateaued at approximately case 100, was significantly different among the groups. There was no improvement in post-operative complications, re-operation rates, mortality, length of stay and re-admission rates over time for both surgeons.

CONCLUSION

We demonstrated that a learning curve for PD exists with respect to various factors. However, the factors for which learning curves were exhibited and the degree of improvement over time were different between the two surgeons.

Complex hepato-pancreato-biliary caseload during general surgery residency training: are we adequately training the next generation?

BACKGROUND

Information on procedure volume of graduating chief residents (GCRs) for hepato-pancreato-biliary(HPB) surgical procedures may inform assessments of resident training. This study sought to characterize trends in operative volumes over a 19-year period to define the degree to which general surgery residents gain exposure to HPB procedures during training.

METHODS

The ACGME was queried for all HPB operations performed by GCR between 2000-2018. Total procedures as well as means and fold change was calculated and reported for each year.

RESULTS

Between 2000-2018, the number of general surgery residency programs varied between 240 and 254. A total of 411,383 HPB procedures (36.2% liver, 42.8% pancreas, 21% complex biliary) were performed by 22,229 GCR. Each year of the study, GCR had similar mean number total procedures:liver 7.4, pancreas 8.7, and complex biliary 4.4. For liver procedures there was no difference in the fold change over time, however for pancreas there was an increase in the fold change from 2.25 to 3.25.

CONCLUSION

Most GCRs are graduating with a low number of HPB procedures and trends suggesting a decrease in the mean number of procedures per GCR and an increasing variability among residents.

How to train and evaluate minimally invasive pancreas surgery

Training for minimally invasive pancreas surgery is critical as an evolving body of literature supports its use with acceptable outcomes during training and improved short term outcomes following completion. Although case volume needed to achieve mastery remains unclear, improved outcomes for both laparoscopic and robotic pancreatectomy are demonstrated following a learning curve and inflection point. Therefore, dedicated training curricula for both laparoscopic and robotic pancreatectomy have been developed to mitigate this learning curve and improve outcomes.

Robotic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy: a meta-analysis of short-term outcomes

BACKGROUND

Although robotic surgery is popular around the world, its safety and efficacy over classical open surgery is still controversial. The purpose of this article is to compare the safety and efficacy of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD).

METHODS

A literature search of PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library database up to July 29, 2018 was performed and the meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.2 software with Fixed and random effects models applied. The IRB approval and written consent were not needed for this paper.

RESULTS

Twelve non-randomized retrospective studies and 1 non-randomized prospective study consisting of 2403 patients were included in this meta-analysis. There were 788 (33%) patients in the RPD group and 1615 (67%) patients in the OPD group. Although RPD was associated with a longer operative time (weighted mean difference [WMD]: 71.74 min; 95% CI 23.37-120.12; p = 0.004), patient might benefit from less blood loss (WMD: - 374.03 ml; 95% CI - 506.84 to - 241.21; p < 0.00001), shorter length of stay (WMD: - 5.19 day; 95% CI - 8.42 to - 1.97; p = 0.002), and lower wound infection rate (odds ratio: 0.17; 95% CI 0.04-0.80; p = 0.02). No statistically significant difference was observed in positive margin rate, lymph nodes harvested, postoperative complications, reoperation or readmission rate, and mortality rate.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy is a safe and feasible alternative to open pancreaticoduodenectomy with regard to short-term outcomes. Further studies on the long-term outcomes of these surgical techniques are needed.

Assessing the influence of experience in pancreatic surgery: a risk-adjusted analysis using the American College of Surgeons NSQIP database

BACKGROUND

The association between higher surgical volume and better perioperative outcomes after pancreatectomy has been extensively demonstrated. However, how different notions of experience impact outcomes of surgeons operating within high-quality scenarios remains unclear.

METHODS

Self-reported experience parameters from ACS-NSQIP HPB-Collaborative surgeons were merged with 2014-2016 ACS-NSQIP clinical data. The association of various experience parameters with outcomes was investigated through uni- and multivariable analyses. Hierarchical regression assessed surgeon performance.

RESULTS

111/151 HPB-Collaborative surgeons provided responses (73.5%). Compared to the other 532 ACS-NSQIP surgeons performing pancreatectomy, HPB-Collaborative surgeons performed 7692/16,239 of the overall pancreatectomies (47.3%), with improved outcomes of serious morbidity, pancreatic fistula, reoperation, duration of stay and readmissions. Median age of respondents was 49 years and 92.8% were fellowship-trained. Median career and annual pancreatectomy volume were 400 and 35, respectively; median annual institutional volume was 100 resections. On unadjusted analyses, several aspects of experience were associated with the outcomes studied, especially for pancreatoduodenectomy; however, none remained significant after multivariable adjustment. Surgeons' profiling showed substantial homogeneity in performance for both pancreatoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

Contemporary data shows that for surgeons operating in high quality settings clinical outcomes are largely independent of indicators of greater experience.

Survivor and Caregiver Expectations and Preferences Regarding Lung Cancer Treatment

Purpose

Treatment success in lung cancer is no longer restricted to objective measures of disease-specific outcomes and overall survival alone but now incorporates treatment morbidity and subjective quality of life (QoL). This study reports how lung cancer patients, survivors, and caregivers define treatment success and prioritize treatment decisions.

Materials and Methods

An online survey with both ranking and free-response questions was administered among lung cancer survivors and caregivers. Responses were used to evaluate treatment priorities, perceptions of treatment success based on Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status, and troublesomeness of treatment-related toxicities.

Results

Among 61 respondents (29 lung cancer survivors, 28 caregivers of survivors, and 4 who were both survivors and caregivers), cancer cure was the highest priority when making treatment decisions for 74.5% of respondents, with QoL during and after treatment ranking second and third. Seventy percent of respondents felt that treatment morbidity resulting in complete dependence on others and spending the entire day confined to bed or chair would represent unsuccessful treatment. Requiring oxygen use was ranked as a very or extremely troublesome treatment toxicity by 64%, followed by shortness of breath (62%), fatigue (49%), chronic cough (34%), and appetite loss (30%). Even with remission, a 3- to 7-day hospital admission for pneumonia during treatment was deemed an unsuccessful outcome by 30%.

Conclusion

This study highlights the importance of physicians discussing in detail with their lung cancer patients their desires and goals. Accounting for factors like expected performance status following treatment, troublesomeness of treatment toxicities, and hospitalization rates may help guide treatment decisions.