There is a need for a paradigm shift in laparoscopic surgical training: results of a nationwide survey among teaching hospitals in Switzerland

BACKGROUND

Surgical training curricula have changed little over the past decades. Current advances in surgical techniques, especially in minimally invasive surgery, as well as the rapidly changing socioeconomic environment pose a major challenge for the training of young surgeons. The aim of this survey was to provide a representative overview of the surgical training landscape in Switzerland focusing on laparoscopic surgical training: How do department chairs of teaching hospitals deal with the above challenges, and what should a future training curriculum look like?

METHODS

This is a prospective, questionnaire-based, cross-sectional study among the heads of departments of all certified surgical teaching hospitals in Switzerland.

RESULTS

The overall response rate was 56% (48/86) and 86% (19/22) for tertiary centers. Two-thirds of the centers (32) organize themselves in training networks. Laparoscopic training courses are offered in 25 (52%) hospitals, mainly in tertiary centers. Self-training opportunities exist in 40 (83%) hospitals. In addition to commercial (27) and self-built (7) box trainers, high-fidelity trainers are available in 16 (33%) hospitals. A mandatory training curriculum exists in 7 (15%) facilities, and a training assessment is performed in 15 (31%) institutions. Thirty-two (65%) heads of departments indicated that residents have sufficient practical exposure in the operating room, but the ability to work independently with obtaining the specialist title is seen critically (71%). They state that the surgical catalog does not adequately reflect the manual skills of the resident (64%). The desire is for training to be restructured from a numbers-based to a performance-based curriculum (53%) and for tools to assess residents' manual skills (56%) to be introduced.

CONCLUSIONS

Department chairs stated that the existing curriculum in Switzerland does not meet the requirements of a modern training curriculum. This study highlights the need to create an improved, competency-based curriculum that ensures the training of a new generation of surgeons, taking into account the growing evidence of the effectiveness of state-of-the-art training modalities such as simulation or proficiency-based training.

Prophylactic funnel mesh to prevent parastomal hernia in permanent end colostomy: A retrospective cohort study

AIM

This study assessed the impact of a prophylactic, 3D funnel-shaped intraperitoneal mesh on the rate of parastomal hernia after abdominoperineal rectum resection with permanent end colostomy.

METHODS

Data from 76 patients receiving permanent end colostomy after abdominoperineal rectum resection between 2013 and 2018 were collected retrospectively. Occurrences of parastomal hernia and reoperation rate due to parastomal hernia in patients with and without a prophylactic mesh were compared by univariate, multivariate, and propensity score-adjusted analyses.

RESULTS

Twenty-two (28.9%) of the 76 included patients received a prophylactic mesh. The mean follow-up was 39.3 ± 23.8 months. Mesh implantation reduced the incidence of parastomal hernia to 9.1% (n = 2) compared to 42.6% (n = 23) in patients without a prophylactic mesh. The propensity score-adjusted hazard ratio (HR) was 0.14 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.04-0.48, p = 0.001). No reoperations due to parastomal hernia were needed in patients who received a prophylactic mesh, while nine patients without mesh (16.7%) required parastomal hernia repair (HR = 0.09, 95% CI: 0.00-1.76, p = 0.015). Mesh implantation was not associated with increased short-term morbidity (Clavien-Dindo grade > 2, 31.8% vs. 40.7%, p = 0.468) or 30-day mortality (4.5% vs. 3.8%, p = 1.000).

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic implantation of a 3D funnel-shaped intraperitoneal mesh is a safe and effective method to prevent parastomal hernia in patients requiring permanent end colostomy. Mesh placement significantly reduces reoperations due to parastomal hernia.

Chronic pancreatitis and systemic inflammatory response syndrome prevent impact of chemotherapy with gemcitabine in a genetically engineered mouse model of pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

BACKGROUND AND AIMSGemcitabine is the standard therapy for patients with pancreatic cancer with metastatic disease. Patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer presenting with increased values of C-reactive protein do not respond to gemcitabine. So far, no studies have evaluated the correlation between chronic pancreatitis, systemic inflammatory response syndrome, and the loss of chemotherapeutic benefit.

METHODS

Pdx-1-Cre;LSL-Kras(G12D/+);LSL-Trp53(R172H/+) mice were assigned into four groups: 1) Sixteen animals received a daily intraperitoneal injection of caerulein from their ninth week of life on. 2) Sixteen mice were additionally given gemcitabine. 3) Twelve animals received gemcitabine only. 4) Saline-treated control group. Furthermore, human Paca44 pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma cells were seeded and cultured in 0.5% FBS containing growth medium plus/minus 1 μM gemcitabine plus/minus recombinant human interleukin (IL)-6.

RESULTS

Induced systemic inflammatory response syndrome and a mild chronic pancreatitis diminished the beneficial effects of gemcitabine upon median overall survival. In median, the monogemcitabine group survived 191 days, whereas the caerulein-mono group survived 114, the control group 121, and the caerulein gemcitabine group 127 days (P < .05). In vitro, the induction of STAT3 phosphorylation by recombinant human IL-6 promoted pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma cell survival during gemcitabine treatment.

CONCLUSION

We could demonstrate for the first time that an improvement in median overall survival with gemcitabine is significantly abolished by a persistent mild chronic pancreatitis and a systemic inflammatory response syndrome. In particular, the inflammation biomarkers C-reactive protein, IL-6, and IL-1α could indicate the prognostic benefit of gemcitabine chemotherapy and should now be tested in prospective patient-controlled trials.

Simvastatin delay progression of pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia and cancer formation in a genetically engineered mouse model of pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Pancreatic cancer is among the most dismal of human malignancies. There are no chemopreventive strategies for pancreatic cancer or its precursor lesions, pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PanINs). Recent evidence suggests that statins have potential chemopreventive abilities. In this study, we used a genetically engineered mouse model of pancreatic cancer to evaluate the chemopreventive potential of this drug.

METHODS

Simvastatin was injected i.p. in LsL-Kras(G12D); Pdx1-Cre or LsL-Kras(G12D);LsL-Trp53(R172H);Pdx1-Cre mice. After five months, animals were sacrificed. The effect of simvastatin was evaluated by histopathological analyses, immunostaining, and real-time PCR.

RESULTS

After five months of treatment, simvastatin was able to significantly delay progression of mPanINs in LsL-Kras(G12D); Pdx1-Cre mice. Furthermore, formation of invasive pancreatic cancer in LsL-Kras(G12D); LsL-Trp53(R172H); Pdx1-Cre transgenic mice was partially inhibited by simvastatin. Invasive murine pancreatic cancer was identified in 9 of 12 (75%) LsL-Kras(G12D); LsL-Trp53(R172H);Pdx1-Cre untreated control mice. In contrast, transgenic mice treated with Simvastatin, only 4 out of 10 (40%, p = 0.004) developed murine pancreatic cancer during the study. Using real-time PCR we found a significant up-regulation of Hmgcr as sign of blocking HMG-CoA reductase, a key enzyme in the cholesterol biosynthesis. This shows our ability to achieve effective pharmacologic levels of simvastatin during pancreatic cancer formation in vivo.

CONCLUSION

Using a transgenic mouse model that recapitulates human pancreatic cancer, this study provides first evidence that simvastatin is an effective chemopreventive agent by delaying the progression of PanINs and partially inhibit the formation of murine pancreatic cancer.