| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Glasbey, JC, et al.
(författare)
-
- 2021
-
swepub:Mat__t
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
- Andersson, B., et al.
(författare)
-
Surgical outcomes of gallbladder cancer: the OMEGA retrospective, multicentre, international cohort study
- 2023
-
Ingår i: EClinicalMedicine. - 2589-5370. ; 59
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Gallbladder cancer (GBC) is rare but aggressive. The extent of surgical intervention for different GBC stages is non-uniform, ranging from cholecystectomy alone to extended resections including major hepatectomy, resection of adjacent organs and routine extrahepatic bile duct resection (EBDR). Robust evidence here is lacking, however, and survival benefit poorly defined. This study assesses factors associated with recurrence-free survival (RFS), overall survival (OS) and morbidity and mortality following GBC surgery in high income countries (HIC) and low and middle income countries (LMIC). Methods: The multicentre, retrospective Operative Management of Gallbladder Cancer (OMEGA) cohort study included all patients who underwent GBC resection across 133 centres between 1st January 2010 and 31st December 2020. Regression analyses assessed factors associated with OS, RFS and morbidity. Findings: On multivariable analysis of all 3676 patients, wedge resection and segment IVb/V resection failed to improve RFS (HR 1.04 [0.84–1.29], p = 0.711 and HR 1.18 [0.95–1.46], p = 0.13 respectively) or OS (HR 0.96 [0.79–1.17], p = 0.67 and HR 1.48 [1.16–1.88], p = 0.49 respectively), while major hepatectomy was associated with worse RFS (HR 1.33 [1.02–1.74], p = 0.037) and OS (HR 1.26 [1.03–1.53], p = 0.022). Furthermore, EBDR (OR 2.86 [2.3–3.52], p < 0.0010), resection of additional organs (OR 2.22 [1.62–3.02], p < 0.0010) and major hepatectomy (OR 3.81 [2.55–5.73], p < 0.0010) were all associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Compared to LMIC, patients in HIC were associated with poorer RFS (HR 1.18 [1.02–1.37], p = 0.031) but not OS (HR 1.05 [0.91–1.22], p = 0.48). Adjuvant and neoadjuvant treatments were infrequently used. Interpretation: In this large, multicentre analysis of GBC surgical outcomes, liver resection was not conclusively associated with improved survival, and extended resections were associated with greater morbidity and mortality without oncological benefit. Aggressive upfront resections do not benefit higher stage GBC, and international collaborations are needed to develop evidence-based neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatment strategies to minimise surgical morbidity and prioritise prognostic benefit. Funding:Cambridge Hepatopancreatobiliary Department Research Fund. © 2023 The Author(s)
|
|
| 9. |
- Balakrishnan, A., et al.
(författare)
-
Heterogeneity of management practices surrounding operable gallbladder cancer – results of the OMEGA-S international HPB surgical survey
- 2022
-
Ingår i: HPB. - : Elsevier BV. - 1365-182X. ; 24:11, s. 2006-2012
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Gallbladder cancer (GBC) is an aggressive, uncommon malignancy, with variation in operative approaches adopted across centres and few large-scale studies to guide practice. We aimed to identify the extent of heterogeneity in GBC internationally to better inform the need for future multicentre studies. Methods: A 34-question online survey was disseminated to members of the European-African Hepatopancreatobiliary Association (EAHPBA), American Hepatopancreatobiliary Association (AHPBA) and Asia–Pacific Hepatopancreatobiliary Association (A-PHPBA) regarding practices around diagnostic workup, operative approach, utilization of neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapies and surveillance strategies. Results: Two hundred and three surgeons responded from 51 countries. High liver resection volume units (>50 resections/year) organised HPB multidisciplinary team discussion of GBCs more commonly than those with low volumes (p < 0.0001). Management practices exhibited areas of heterogeneity, particularly around operative extent. Contrary to consensus guidelines, anatomical liver resections were favoured over non-anatomical resections for T3 tumours and above, lymphadenectomy extent was lower than recommended, and a minority of respondents still routinely excised the common bile duct or port sites. Conclusion: Our findings suggest some similarities in the management of GBC internationally, but also specific areas of practice which differed from published guidelines. Transcontinental collaborative studies on GBC are necessary to establish evidence-based practice to minimise variation and optimise outcomes. © 2022 International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association Inc.
|
|
| 10. |
- 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.
|
|
| 11. |
- 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.
|
|
| 12. |
|
|
| 13. |
|
|
| 14. |
- van Ramshorst, Tess M. E., et al.
(författare)
-
Benchmarking of robotic and laparoscopic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy by using two different methods
- 2023
-
Ingår i: British Journal of Surgery. - : Oxford University Press. - 0007-1323 .- 1365-2168. ; 110:1, s. 76-83
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background Benchmarking is an important tool for quality comparison and improvement. However, no benchmark values are available for minimally invasive spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy, either laparoscopically or robotically assisted. The aim of this study was to establish benchmarks for these techniques using two different methods. Methods Data from patients undergoing laparoscopically or robotically assisted spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy were extracted from a multicentre database (2006-2019). Benchmarks for 10 outcomes were calculated using the Achievable Benchmark of Care (ABC) and best-patient-in-best-centre methods. Results Overall, 951 laparoscopically assisted (77.3 per cent) and 279 robotically assisted (22.7 per cent) procedures were included. Using the ABC method, the benchmarks for laparoscopically assisted and robotically assisted spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy respectively were: 150 and 207 min for duration of operation, 55 and 100 ml for blood loss, 3.5 and 1.7 per cent for conversion, 0 and 1.7 per cent for failure to preserve the spleen, 27.3 and 34.0 per cent for overall morbidity, 5.1 and 3.3 per cent for major morbidity, 3.6 and 7.1 per cent for pancreatic fistula grade B/C, 5 and 6 days for duration of hospital stay, 2.9 and 5.4 per cent for readmissions, and 0 and 0 per cent for 90-day mortality. Best-patient-in-best-centre methodology revealed milder benchmark cut-offs for laparoscopically and robotically assisted procedures, with operating times of 254 and 262.5 min, blood loss of 150 and 195 ml, conversion rates of 5.8 and 8.2 per cent, rates of failure to salvage spleen of 29.9 and 27.3 per cent, overall morbidity rates of 62.7 and 55.7 per cent, major morbidity rates of 20.4 and 14 per cent, POPF B/C rates of 23.8 and 24.2 per cent, duration of hospital stay of 8 and 8 days, readmission rates of 20 and 15.1 per cent, and 90-day mortality rates of 0 and 0 per cent respectively. Conclusion Two benchmark methods for minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy produced different values, and should be interpreted and applied differently. This study established benchmark values for laparoscopically and robotically assisted spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy in both unselected and low-risk patients using two validated methodologies. The benchmark values require different interpretation and application based on the purpose of benchmarking and the patient cohort, and can be used for in-hospital and interhospital comparison and improvement purposes.
|
|
