| 1. |
- Giani, Alessandro, et al.
(författare)
-
Benchmarking of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy: European multicentre study
- 2022
-
Ingår i: British Journal of Surgery. - : OXFORD UNIV PRESS. - 0007-1323 .- 1365-2168. ; 109:11, s. 1124-1130
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- This study aimed to assess best achievable outcomes in minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy, applying the Achievable Benchmark of Care method. This method of assessing outcomes should positively encourage comparisons, allowing single surgeons or entire units to anonymously and individually recognize what works well and where there might be room for improvement. Background Benchmarking is the process to used assess the best achievable results and compare outcomes with that standard. This study aimed to assess best achievable outcomes in minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy (MIDPS). Methods This retrospective study included consecutive patients undergoing MIDPS for any indication, between 2003 and 2019, in 31 European centres. Benchmarks of the main clinical outcomes were calculated according to the Achievable Benchmark of Care (ABC (TM)) method. After identifying independent risk factors for severe morbidity and conversion, risk-adjusted ABCs were calculated for each subgroup of patients at risk. Results A total of 1595 patients were included. The ABC was 2.5 per cent for conversion and 8.4 per cent for severe morbidity. ABC values were 160 min for duration of operation time, 8.3 per cent for POPF, 1.8 per cent for reoperation, and 0 per cent for mortality. Multivariable analysis showed that conversion was associated with male sex (OR 1.48), BMI exceeding 30 kg/m(2) (OR 2.42), multivisceral resection (OR 3.04), and laparoscopy (OR 2.24). Increased risk of severe morbidity was associated with ASA fitness grade above II (OR 1.60), multivisceral resection (OR 1.88), and robotic approach (OR 1.87). Conclusion The benchmark values obtained using the ABC method represent optimal outcomes from best achievable care, including low complication rates and zero mortality. These benchmarks should be used to set standards to improve patient outcomes.
|
|
| 2. |
- Lof, Sanne, et al.
(författare)
-
Learning Curves of Minimally Invasive Distal Pancreatectomy in Experienced Pancreatic Centers
- 2023
-
Ingår i: JAMA Surgery. - : AMER MEDICAL ASSOC. - 2168-6254 .- 2168-6262. ; 158:9, s. 927-933
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- IMPORTANCE Understanding the learning curve of a new complex surgical technique helps to reduce potential patient harm. Current series on the learning curve of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) are mostly small, single-center series, thus providing limited data. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the length of pooled learning curves of MIDP in experienced centers. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This international, multicenter, retrospective cohort study included MIDP procedures performed from January 1, 2006, through June 30, 2019, in 26 European centers from 8 countries that each performed more than 15 distal pancreatectomies annually, with an overall experience exceeding 50 MIDP procedures. Consecutive patients who underwent elective laparoscopic or robotic distal pancreatectomy for all indications were included. Data were analyzed between September 1, 2021, and May 1, 2022. EXPOSURES The learning curve for MIDP was estimated by pooling data from all centers. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The learning curvewas assessed for the primary textbook outcome (TBO), which is a composite measure that reflects optimal outcome, and for surgical mastery. Generalized additive models and a 2-piece linear model with a break point were used to estimate the learning curve length of MIDP. Case mix-expected probabilities were plotted and compared with observed outcomes to assess the association of changing case mix with outcomes. The learning curve also was assessed for the secondary outcomes of operation time, intraoperative blood loss, conversion to open rate, and postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C. RESULTS From a total of 2610 MIDP procedures, the learning curve analysis was conducted on 2041 procedures (mean [SD] patient age, 58 [15.3] years; among 2040 with reported sex, 1249 were female [61.2%] and 791 male [38.8%]). The 2-piece model showed an increase and eventually a break point for TBO at 85 procedures (95% CI, 13-157 procedures), with a plateau TBO rate at 70%. The learning-associated loss of TBO rate was estimated at 3.3%. For conversion, a break point was estimated at 40 procedures (95% CI, 11-68 procedures); for operation time, at 56 procedures (95% CI, 35-77 procedures); and for intraoperative blood loss, at 71 procedures (95% CI, 28-114 procedures). For postoperative pancreatic fistula, no break point could be estimated. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE In experienced international centers, the learning curve length of MIDP for TBO was considerable with 85 procedures. These findings suggest that although learning curves for conversion, operation time, and intraoperative blood loss are completed earlier, extensive experience may be needed to master the learning curve of MIDP.
|
|
| 3. |
- Korrel, Maarten, et al.
(författare)
-
Minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy for resectable pancreatic cancer (DIPLOMA): an international randomised non-inferiority trial
- 2023
-
Ingår i: The Lancet Regional Health. - : ELSEVIER. - 2666-7762. ; 31
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background The oncological safety of minimally invasive surgery has been questioned for several abdominal cancers. Concerns also exist regarding the use of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer as randomised trials are lacking. Methods In this international randomised non-inferiority trial, we recruited adults with resectable pancreatic cancer from 35 centres in 12 countries. Patients were randomly assigned to either MIDP (laparoscopic or robotic) or open distal pancreatectomy (ODP). Both patients and pathologists were blinded to the assigned approach. Primary endpoint was radical resection (R0, & GE;1 mm free margin) in patients who had ultimately undergone resection. Analyses for the primary endpoint were by modified intention-to-treat, excluding patients with missing data on primary endpoint. The pre-defined non-inferiority margin of -7% was compared with the lower limit of the two-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) of absolute difference in the primary endpoint. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN44897265). Findings Between May 8, 2018 and May 7, 2021, 258 patients were randomly assigned to MIDP (131 patients) or ODP (127 patients). Modified intention-to-treat analysis included 114 patients in the MIDP group and 110 patients in the ODP group. An R0 resection occurred in 83 (73%) patients in the MIDP group and in 76 (69%) patients in the ODP group (difference 3.7%, 90% CI -6.2 to 13.6%; pnon-inferiority = 0.039). Median lymph node yield was comparable (22.0 [16.0-30.0] vs 23.0 [14.0-32.0] nodes, p = 0.86), as was the rate of intraperitoneal recurrence (41% vs 38%, p = 0.45). Median follow-up was 23.5 (interquartile range 17.0-30.0) months. Other postoperative outcomes were comparable, including median time to functional recovery (5 [95% CI 4.5-5.5] vs 5 [95% CI 4.7-5.3] days; p = 0.22) and overall survival (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.67-1.46, p = 0.94). Serious adverse events were reported in 23 (18%) of 131 patients in the MIDP group vs 28 (22%) of 127 patients in the ODP group. Interpretation This trial provides evidence on the non-inferiority of MIDP compared to ODP regarding radical resection rates in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer. The present findings support the applicability of minimally invasive surgery in patients with resectable left-sided pancreatic cancer. Funding Medtronic Covidien AG, Johnson & Johnson Medical Limited, Dutch Gastroenterology Society. Copyright & COPY; 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
|
|
| 4. |
- Latenstein, Anouk E. J., et al.
(författare)
-
Clinical Outcomes After Total Pancreatectomy A Prospective Multicenter Pan-European Snapshot Study
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Annals of Surgery. - : LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS. - 0003-4932 .- 1528-1140. ; 276:5, s. E536-E543
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objective: To assess outcomes among patients undergoing total pancreatectomy (TP) including predictors for complications and in-hospital mortality. Background: Current studies on TP mostly originate from high-volume centers and span long time periods and therefore may not reflect daily practice. Methods: This prospective pan-European snapshot study included patients who underwent elective (primary or completion) TP in 43 centers in 16 European countries (June 2018-June 2019). Subgroup analysis included cutoff values for annual volume of pancreatoduodenectomies (<60 vs >= 60). Predictors for major complications and in-hospital mortality were assessed in multivariable logistic regression. Results: In total, 277 patients underwent TP, mostly for malignant disease (73%). Major postoperative complications occurred in 70 patients (25%). Median hospital stay was 12 days (IQR 9-18) and 40 patients were readmitted (15%). In-hospital mortality was 5% and 90-day mortality 8%. In the subgroup analysis, in-hospital mortality was lower in patients operated in centers with >= 60 pancreatoduodenectomies compared <60 (4% vs 10%, P = 0.046). In multivariable analysis, annual volume <60 pancreatoduodenectomies (OR 3.78, 95% CI 1.18-12.16, P = 0.026), age (OR 1.07, 95% CI 1.01-1.14, P = 0.046), and estimated blood loss >= 2L (OR 11.89, 95% CI 2.64-53.61, P = 0.001) were associated with in-hospital mortality. ASA >= 3 (OR 2.87, 95% CI 1.56-5.26, P = 0.001) and estimated blood loss >= 2L (OR 3.52, 95% CI 1.25-9.90, P = 0.017) were associated with major complications. Conclusion: This pan-European prospective snapshot study found a 5% inhospital mortality after TP. The identified predictors for mortality, including low-volume centers, age, and increased blood loss, may be used to improve outcomes.
|
|
