Learning curve of laparoscopic and robotic pancreas resections: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive pancreatic resection has been shown recently in some randomized trials to be superior in selected perioperative outcomes compared with open resection when performed by experienced surgeons. However, minimally invasive pancreatic resection is associated with a long learning curve. This study aims to summarize the current evidence on the learning curve of minimally invasive pancreatic resection and define the number of cases required to surmount the learning curve. METHODS: A systematic search was performed on PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane database using a detailed search strategy. Studies that did not describe the learning curve were excluded from the study. Data on the method of learning curve analysis, single surgeon versus institutional learning curve, and outcome measures were extracted and analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 32 studies were included in the pooled analysis: 12 on laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy, 9 on robotic pancreatoduodenectomy, 12 on laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy, and 3 on robotic distal pancreatectomy. Sample population was comparable between laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy and robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (median 63 vs 65). Six of 12 studies and 7 of 9 studies used nonarbitrary methods of analysis in laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy and robotic pancreatoduodenectomy, respectively. Operating time was used as the single outcome measure in 4 of 12 studies in laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy and 5 of 9 studies in robotic pancreatoduodenectomy. Overall, there was no significant difference between the number of cases required to surmount the learning curve for laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy versus robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy 34.1 [95% confidence interval 30.7-37.7] versus robotic pancreatoduodenectomy 36.7 [95% confidence interval 32.9-41.0]; P = .8241) and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy versus robotic distal pancreatectomy (laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy 25.3 [95% confidence interval 22.5-28.3] versus robotic distal pancreatectomy 20.7 [95% confidence interval 15.8-26.5]; P = .5997.) CONCLUSION: This study provides a detailed summary of existing evidence around the learning curve in minimally invasive pancreatic resection. There was no significant difference between the learning curve for robotic pancreatoduodenectomy versus laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy and robotic distal pancreatectomy versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. These findings were limited by the retrospective nature and heterogeneity of the studies published to date.

Procedure-specific Training for Robot-assisted Distal Pancreatectomy.

OBJECTIVE: To train practicing surgeons in robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy (RADP) and assess the impact on 5 domains of healthcare quality. BACKGROUND: RADP may reduce the treatment burden compared with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP), but studies on institutional training and implementation programs are scarce. METHODS: A retrospective, single-center, cohort study evaluating surgical performance during a procedure-specific training program for RADP (January 2006 to September 2017). Baseline and unadjusted outcomes were compared "before training" (ODP only; June 2012). Exclusion criteria were neoadjuvant therapy, vascular- and unrelated organ resection. Run charts evaluated index length of stay (LOS) and 90-day comprehensive complication index. Cumulative sum charts of operating time (OT) assessed institutional learning. Adjusted outcomes after RADP versus ODP were compared using a secondary propensity-score-matched (1:1) analysis to determine clinical efficacy. RESULTS: After screening, 237 patients were included in the before-training (133 ODP) and after-training (24 ODP, 80 RADP) groups. After initiation of training, mean perioperative blood loss decreased (-255 mL, P<0.001), OT increased (+65 min, P < 0.001), and median LOS decreased (-1 day, P < 0.001). All other outcomes remained similar (P>0.05). Over time, there were nonrandom (P < 0.05) downward shifts in LOS, while comprehensive complication index was unaffected. We observed 3 learning curve phases in OT: accumulation (<31 cases), optimization (case 31-65), and a steady-state (>65 cases). Propensity-score-matching confirmed reductions in index and 90-day LOS and blood loss with similar morbidity between RADP and ODP. CONCLUSION: Supervised procedure-specific training enabled successful implementation of RADP by practicing surgeons with immediate improvements in length of stay, without adverse effects on safety.

Critical Appraisal of the Impact of Individual Surgeon Experience on the Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Distal Pancreatectomies: Collective Experience of Multiple Surgeons at a Single Institution.

BACKGROUND: Presently, there are limited studies analyzing the learning experience of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomies (MIDPs) and these frequently focused on a single surgeon or institution learning curve. This study aims to critically analyze the impact of individual surgeon experience on the outcomes of MIDP based on the collective experiences of multiple surgeons at a single institution. METHODS: A retrospective review of 90 consecutive MIDP from 2006 to 2018 was performed. These cases were performed by 13 surgeons over various time periods. The cohort was stratified into 4 groups according to individual surgeon experience. The case experience of these surgeons was as follows: <5 cases (n=8), 6 to 10 cases (n=2), 11 to 15 cases (n=2), and 30 cases (n=1). RESULTS: The distribution of the 90 cases were as follows: experience <5 cases (n=44), 6 to 10 cases (n=20), 11 to 15 cases (n=11), and 15 cases (n=15). As individual surgeons gained increasing experience, this was significantly associated with increasingly difficult resections performed, increased frequency of the use of robotic assistance and decreasing open conversion rates (20.5% vs. 100% vs. 9.1% vs. 0%, P=0.038). There was no significant difference in other perioperative outcomes. These findings suggest that the outcomes of MIDP in terms of open conversion rate could be optimized after 15 cases. Subset analyses suggested that the learning curve for MIDP of low difficulty was only 5 cases. CONCLUSION: MIDP can be safely adopted today and the individual surgeon learning curve for MIDP of all difficulties in terms of open conversion rate can be overcome after 15 cases.

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.

The superior approach with the stomach roll-up technique improves intraoperative outcomes and facilitates learning laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: a comparative study between the superior and inferior approach.

PURPOSE: We introduced a superior approach and a unique technique to retract the stomach, called the "stomach roll-up technique", to standardize laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy and increase educational effectiveness. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcomes of these procedures. METHODS: Forty-five patients who underwent laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy by surgeons-in-training between January 2015 and December 2018 were included. Twenty laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies were performed using the inferior approach, and 25 procedures were performed using the superior approach. The stomach roll-up technique was used in all cases. The perioperative outcomes were retrospectively analyzed. RESULTS: Compared with the inferior approach, the superior approach was associated with a significantly shorter operation time (p < 0.001) and lower estimated blood loss (p = 0.011), and these differences were not affected by the exclusion of cases with conversion or concomitant procedures. In the univariate analysis adjusted for other covariates, a lower body mass index (p = 0.045), pancreatic tail tumor (p = 0.0178) and the superior approach (p = 0.0176) were significantly associated with a shorter operation time. CONCLUSION: The superior approach with the stomach roll-up technique is simple and will aid in educating surgeons on performing laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy.

Single-port versus conventional laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: a propensity score matched analysis and a learning curve of single-port approach.

BACKGROUND: Single-port laparoscopic approaches are well established in the field of minimally invasive surgery; however, single-port laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (SPLDP) has not been evaluated in a large number of distal pancreatic neoplasms. We aimed to compare single-port laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy outcomes with conventional laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) outcomes. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated the medical records of 101 patients who underwent SPLDP (n = 26) or LDP (n = 75). We performed 1:1 propensity score matching between the two groups. Consequently, 26 patients were included in each group. We analyzed the learning curve based on the operation time in SPLDP. RESULTS: Single-port laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy could be performed with fewer trocars (P < 0.001) and assistants (P < 0.001). However, compared to the LDP group, mean operation time was longer (278.9 vs. 178.7 min, P < 0.001) and splenic vessel preservation rates were lower (0% vs. 46.2%, P < 0.001) in the SPLDP group. The mean pain visual analogue scale score was significantly lower at postoperative day 1 (P < 0.001) and day 2 (P < 0.001) in the SPLDP group. The learning curve was determined in the 12th case for SPLDP. CONCLUSIONS: Single-port laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is comparable in safety to conventional laparoscopic approaches for distal pancreatic neoplasms, with fewer trocars, assistants and less pain; however, operation time was longer.

Learning curves for robotic pancreatic surgery-from distal pancreatectomy to pancreaticoduodenectomy.

This study sought to identify the learning curves of console time (CT) for robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) and robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP). Perioperative outcomes were compared between the early group of surgeries performed early in the learning curve and the late group of surgeries performed after the learning curve.Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is a technically demanding and challenging procedure carrying a high morbidity.Data for RDP and RPD were prospectively collected for analysis. The learning curve was assessed by cumulative sum (CUSUM). Based on CUSUM analyses, patients were divided into the early group and the late group.There were 70 RDP and 61 RPD cases. It required 37 cases to overcome the learning curve for RDP and 20 cases for RPD. The median console time was significantly shorter in the late group for both RDP (112 minutes vs 225 minutes, P < .001) and RPD (360 minuntes vs 520 minutes, P < .001). Median blood loss was significantly less in the late group for both RDP (30 cc vs 100 cc, P = .003) and RPD (100 cc vs 200 cc, P < .001). No surgical mortality occurred in either group. Clinically relevant pancreatic fistula rate was 22.9% for RDP (32.4% in the early group vs 12.1% in the late group, P = .043), and 11.5% for RPD (0 in early group vs 17.1% in late group, P = .084).This study demonstrates that the RPD learning curve is 20 cases with prior experience of RDP and confirms the safety and feasibility of both RPD and RDP. Practice and familiarity with the robotic platform are likely to contribute to significant shortening of the learning curve in robotic pancreatic surgery, while knowledge and experience, in addition to practical skills, are also essential to minimize the potential surgical risks of RPD.

A technical note on low cost rat laparoscopy an initial experience.

PURPOSE: To evaluate a novel and adapted low-cost set model for laparoscopic surgery in rats. METHODS: Nine Wistar rats underwent two different laparoscopic procedures, splenectomy (n=3) and distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy (n = 6), after assembling a low-cost set replacing the conventional one (monitor, micro camera, image processor, light source, laparoscope and insufflator). The new set included an Android Tablet 10.5 ", a 5mm USB Endoscope and semiautomatic sphygmomanometer monitor. RESULTS: The same surgeon performed the laparoscopic procedures. Total surgical time ranged from 36 to 60 minutes with a mean of 45.8 minutes. Three rats died during the distal pancreatic and splenectomy procedure (33.3%), due to respiratory failure (n = 1), uncontrolled abdominal hemorrhage (n=1) and iatrogenic gastric perforation (n = 1). We followed the other six rats (66.6%) for seven days with no further evidence of complications. CONCLUSIONS: The laparoscopic partial pancreatectomy and splenectomy can be performed with the novel low-cost set assembled in the present experimental study. Both specific training and skills development are required to validate more advanced laparoscopic procedures and achieve a desirable outcome.

A technical note on low cost rat laparoscopy an initial experience

Abstract Purpose: To evaluate a novel and adapted low-cost set model for laparoscopic surgery in rats. Methods: Nine Wistar rats underwent two different laparoscopic procedures, splenectomy (n=3) and distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy (n = 6), after assembling a low-cost set replacing the conventional one (monitor, micro camera, image processor, light source, laparoscope and insufflator). The new set included an Android Tablet 10.5 ", a 5mm USB Endoscope and semiautomatic sphygmomanometer monitor. Results: The same surgeon performed the laparoscopic procedures. Total surgical time ranged from 36 to 60 minutes with a mean of 45.8 minutes. Three rats died during the distal pancreatic and splenectomy procedure (33.3%), due to respiratory failure (n = 1), uncontrolled abdominal hemorrhage (n=1) and iatrogenic gastric perforation (n = 1). We followed the other six rats (66.6%) for seven days with no further evidence of complications. Conclusions: The laparoscopic partial pancreatectomy and splenectomy can be performed with the novel low-cost set assembled in the present experimental study. Both specific training and skills development are required to validate more advanced laparoscopic procedures and achieve a desirable outcome.

Difficulty scoring system in laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy.

BACKGROUND: Several factors affect the level of difficulty of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP). The purpose of this study was to develop a difficulty scoring (DS) system to quantify the degree of difficulty in LDP. METHODS: We collected clinical data for 80 patients who underwent LDP. A 10-level difficulty index was developed and subcategorized into a three-level difficulty index; 1-3 as low, 4-6 as intermediate, and 7-10 as high index. The automatic linear modeling (LINEAR) statistical tool was used to identify factors that significantly increase level of difficulty in LDP. RESULTS: The operator's 10-level DS concordance between the 10-level DS by the reviewers, LINEAR index DS, and clinical index DS systems were analyzed, and the weighted Cohen's kappa statistic were at 0.869, 0.729, and 0.648, respectively, showing good to excellent inter-rater agreement. We identified five factors significantly affecting level of difficulty in LDP; type of operation, resection line, proximity of tumor to major vessel, tumor extension to peripancreatic tissue, and left-sided portal hypertension/splenomegaly. CONCLUSIONS: This novel DS for LDP adequately quantified the degree of difficulty, and can be useful for selecting patients for LDP, in conjunction with fitness for surgery and prognosis.

Management and Outcomes of Pancreatic Resections Performed in High-Volume Referral and Low-Volume Community Hospitals Lead by Surgeons Who Shared the Same Mentor: The Importance of Training.

BACKGROUND: High hospital volume improves outcomes after pancreatic resection. The aim of this study was to assess if practice and outcomes differed between high- and low-volume centers across which chief surgeons shared a similar training and mentoring. METHODS: Data on patients undergoing standard pancreatic resections (2010-2013) at 7 Italian hospitals were collected. Chiefs of pancreatic surgery at each hospital had received the same training, with the same mentor. Two centers were high-volume referral hospitals for pancreatic disease, while 5 were low-volume hospitals. RESULTS: A total of 856 patients were included, with median annual volume of resections 82 at high-volume referral hospitals and 11 at low-volume hospitals. Patients at low-volume hospitals were older, had more comorbidities, and were more often referred from the emergency room. Intraoperative techniques and reconstruction methods were similar. Comparable rates of major postoperative complications (18 vs. 22%; p = 0.236) and pancreatic fistula (29 vs. 32%; p = 0.287) were achieved in both groups, with no significant increases in failure to rescue from grade B-C fistula (6.2 vs. 15.0%; p = 0.108) and mortality (2.4 vs. 4.1%; p = 0.233) in low-volume hospitals. Postoperative length of stay was shorter in high-volume referral hospitals (10 vs. 15 days; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Similar postoperative outcomes can be achieved across high- and low-volume centers where chief surgeons shared a similar training and mentoring. However, multidisciplinary postoperative provision more often associated with high-volume centers may also affect outcomes.

Worldwide survey on opinions and use of minimally invasive pancreatic resection.

BACKGROUND: The introduction of minimally invasive pancreatic resection (MIPR) into surgical practice has been slow. The worldwide utilization of MIPR and attitude towards future perspectives of MIPR remains unknown. METHODS: An anonymous survey on MIPR was sent to the members of six international associations of Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary (HPB) surgery. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 435 surgeons from 50 countries, with each surgeon performing a median of 22 (IQR 12-40) pancreatic resections annually. Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) was performed by 345 (79%) surgeons and minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) by 124 (29%). The median total personal experience was 20 (IQR 10-50) MIDPs and 12 (IQR 4-40) MIPDs. Current superiority for MIDP was claimed by 304 (70%) and for MIPD by 44 (10%) surgeons. The most frequently mentioned reason for not performing MIDP (54/90 (60%)) and MIPD (193/311 (62%)) was lack of specific training. Most surgeons (394/435 (90%)) would consider participating in an international registry on MIPR. DISCUSSION: This worldwide survey showed that most participating HPB surgeons value MIPR as a useful development, especially for MIDP, but the role and implementation of MIPD requires further assessment. Most HPB surgeons would welcome specific training in MIPR and the establishment of an international registry.

Proceedings of the first international state-of-the-art conference on minimally-invasive pancreatic resection (MIPR).

The application of minimally-invasive techniques to major pancreatic resection (MIPR) has occurred steadily, but slowly, over the last two decades. Questions linger regarding its safety, efficacy, and broad applicability. On April 20th, 2016, the first International State-of-the-Art Conference on Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Resection convened in Sao Paulo, Brazil in conjunction with the International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association's (IHPBA) 10th World Congress. This report describes the genesis, preparation, execution and output from this seminal event. Major themes explored include: (i) scrutiny of best-level evidence outcomes of both MIPR Distal Pancreatectomy (DP) and pancreatoduodenectomy (PD), (ii) Cost/Value/Quality of Life assessment of MIPR, (iii) topics in training, education and credentialing, and (iv) development of best approaches to analyze results of MIPR - including clinical trial design and registry development. Results of a worldwide survey of over 400 surgeons on the practice of MIPR were presented. The proceedings of this event serve as a platform for understanding the role of MIPR in pancreatic resection. Data and concepts presented at this meeting form the basis for further study, application and dissemination of MIPR.

Training in Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Resections: a paradigm shift away from "See one, Do one, Teach one".

BACKGROUND: Increased incorporation of minimally invasive pancreatic resections (MIPR) has emerged into hepato-pancreato-biliary practice, however, no standardization exists for its safe adoption. Novel strategies are presented for dissemination of safe MIPR. METHODS: An international State-of-the-Art conference evaluating multiple aspects of MIPR was conducted by a panel of pancreas experts in Sao Paulo, Brazil on April 20, 2016. Training and education issues were discussed regarding the introduction of novel strategies for safe dissemination of MIPR. RESULTS: The low volume of pancreatic resections per institution poses a challenge for surgeons to overcome their MIPR learning curve without deliberate training. A mastery-based simulation and biotissue curriculum can improve technical proficiency and allow for training of surgeons before the operating room. Video-based platforms allow for performance reporting and feedback necessary for coaching and surgical quality improvement. Centers of excellence with training involving a standardized approach and proctorship are important concepts that can be utilized in various formats internationally. DISCUSSION: Surgical volume is not sufficient to ensure quality and patient safety in MIPR. Safe adoption of these complex procedures should consider innovative mastery-based training outside of the operating room, novel video based coaching techniques and prospective reporting of patient data and outcomes using standardized definitions.

Training in hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery during residency: past, present and future perspectives.

The paradigm introduced by William Halsted for surgical residency training has been considered the most appropriate educational system to acquire the knowledge and surgical skills required to become a competent general surgeon. Hepato-pancreato-biliary (HPB) surgery is considered an important part of general surgery training because of its high prevalence and complexity. Nowadays, we are faced with a worldwide shortage of general surgeons candidates, restrictive working hours and less surgical exposure, situations that can undermine the objectives of training in HPB surgery during residency. Moreover, new generations of resident graduates are concerned about their lack of preparedness for independence. We cannot escape from this reality and therefore it justifies a reflection in our HPB surgical world community.

Impact of a Nationwide Training Program in Minimally Invasive Distal Pancreatectomy (LAELAPS).

OBJECTIVE: To study the feasibility and impact of a nationwide training program in minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Superior outcomes of MIDP compared with open distal pancreatectomy have been reported. In the Netherlands (2005 to 2013) only 10% of distal pancreatectomies were in a minimally invasive fashion and 85% of surgeons welcomed MIDP training. The feasibility and impact of a nationwide training program is unknown. METHODS: From 2014 to 2015, 32 pancreatic surgeons from 17 centers participated in a nationwide training program in MIDP, including detailed technique description, video training, and proctoring on-site. Outcomes of MIDP before training (2005-2013) were compared with outcomes after training (2014-2015). RESULTS: In total, 201 patients were included; 71 underwent MIDP in 9 years before training versus 130 in 22 months after training (7-fold increase, P < 0.001). The conversion rate (38% [n = 27] vs 8% [n = 11], P < 0.001) and blood loss were lower after training and more pancreatic adenocarcinomas were resected (7 [10%] vs 28 [22%], P = 0.03), with comparable R0-resection rates (4/7 [57%] vs 19/28 [68%], P = 0.67). Clavien-Dindo score ≥III complications (15 [21%] vs 19 [15%], P = 0.24) and pancreatic fistulas (20 [28%] vs 41 [32%], P = 0.62) were not significantly different. Length of hospital stay was shorter after training (9 [7-12] vs 7 [5-8] days, P < 0.001). Thirty-day mortality was 3% vs 0% (P = 0.12). CONCLUSION: A nationwide MIDP training program was feasible and followed by a steep increase in the use of MIDP, also in patients with pancreatic cancer, and decreased conversion rates. Future studies should determine whether such a training program is applicable in other settings.

The impact of resident involvement on surgical outcomes among patients undergoing hepatic and pancreatic resections.

BACKGROUND: Resident participation during hepatic and pancreatic resections varies. The impact of resident participation on surgical outcomes in hepatic and pancreatic operations is poorly defined. METHODS: We identified 25,511 patients undergoing a hepatic or pancreatic resection between 2006 and 2012 using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. Multivariate regression models were constructed to determine any association between resident participation and surgical outcomes. RESULTS: Pancreatic resections (n = 16,045; 62.9%) were more common than liver resections (n = 9,466; 37%). Residents participated in the majority of cases (n = 21,857; 86%), with most involvement at the senior level (postgraduate year ≥ 3, n = 21,147; 97%). Resident participation resulted in slightly longer mean operative times (hepatic, 9 minutes; pancreatic, 22 minutes; both P < .01). Need for perioperative transfusion, hospital duration of stay, and reoperation rates were unaffected by resident participation (all P > .05). Resident participation resulted in a higher risk of overall morbidity (odds ratio [OR], 1.14; 95% CI, 1.05-1.24; P = .001), but not major morbidity (OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.93-1.20; P = .40) after liver and pancreas resection. Resident participation resulted in lower odds of 30-day mortality after liver and pancreas resections (OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.60-0.94; P = .01). CONCLUSION: Although resident participation resulted in slightly longer operative times and a modest increase in overall complications after liver and pancreatic resection, other metrics such as duration of stay, major morbidity, and mortality were unaffected. These data have important implications for educating patients regarding resident participation in these complex cases.

Are general surgery residents adequately prepared for hepatopancreatobiliary fellowships? A questionnaire-based study.

BACKGROUND: The present study was conducted to assess the preparedness of hepatopancreatobiliary (HPB) fellows upon entering fellowship, identify challenges encountered by HPB fellows during the initial part of their HPB training, and identify potential solutions to these challenges that can be applied during residency training. METHODS: A questionnaire was distributed to all HPB fellows in accredited HPB fellowship programmes in two consecutive academic years (n = 42). Reponses were then analysed. RESULTS: A total of 19 (45%) fellows responded. Prior to their fellowship, 10 (53%) were in surgical residency and the rest were in other surgical fellowships or surgical practice. Thirteen (68%) were graduates of university-based residency programmes. All fellows felt comfortable in performing basic laparoscopic procedures independently at the completion of residency and less comfortable in performing advanced laparoscopy. Eight (42%) fellows cited a combination of inadequate case volume and lack of autonomy during residency as the reasons for this lack of comfort. Thirteen (68%) identified inadequate preoperative workup and management as their biggest fear upon entering practice after general surgery training. A total of 17 (89%) fellows felt they were adequately prepared to enter HPB fellowship. Extra rotations in transplant, vascular or minimally invasive surgery were believed to be most helpful in preparing general surgery residents pursing HPB fellowships. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, HPB fellows felt themselves to be adequately prepared for fellowship. Advanced laparoscopic procedures and the perioperative management of complex patients are two of the challenges facing HPB fellows. General surgery residents who plan to pursue an HPB fellowship may benefit from spending extra rotations on certain subspecialties. Focus on perioperative workup and management should be an integral part of residency and fellowship training.

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: Educating surgeons about advanced laparoscopic surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (Lap-DP) has been recognized worldwide as a feasible and highly beneficial procedure. The aim of this study is to investigate whether Lap-DP techniques are being implemented safely by surgeons training to perform this procedure. METHODS: We retrospectively compared the perioperative outcomes of Lap-DP in patients operated on by the surgeon originating this procedure at our hospital (expert surgeon group [E group], n = 47) and patients operated on by surgeons training to perform this procedure (training surgeons group [T group], n = 53). RESULTS: The median operating times for the E group and T group were 321 min (range, 150-653 min) and 314 min (range, 173-629 min), respectively; these times were not significantly different (P = 0.4769). The median blood loss in the T group (100 mL; range, 0-1950 mL) was significantly smaller than in the E group (280 mL; range, 0-1920 mL) (P = 0.0003). There were no significant intergroup differences in other operative results: combined operation ratio, spleen- and splenic vessels-preserving ratio, hand-assisted procedure ratio, and the ratio of transition to open. The frequency of pancreatic fistulas in the E group and T group was 12.8% and 16.9%, respectively; these rates were not significantly different (P = 0.5886). There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of other complications and reoperation rates. The median hospital stay for the E group was significantly shorter than for the T group (10 vs 13 days; P = 0.0307). CONCLUSION: This retrospective analysis shows that teaching safe Lap-DP techniques to surgeons is reflected in stable perioperative outcomes.

Exchange of best practices within the European Union: surgery standardization of abdominal organ retrieval.

Considering the growing organ demand worldwide, it is crucial to optimize organ retrieval and training of surgeons to reduce the risk of injury during the procedure and increase the quality of organs to be transplanted. In the Netherlands, a national complete trajectory from training of surgeons in procurement surgery to the quality assessment of the procured organs was implemented in 2010. This mandatory trajectory comprises training and certification modules: E-learning, training on the job, and a practical session. Thanks to the ACCORD (Achieving Comprehensive Coordination in Organ Donation) Joint Action coordinated by Spain and co-funded under the European Commission Health Programme, 3 twinning activities (led by France) were set to exchange best practices between countries. The Dutch trajectory is being adapted and implemented in Hungary as one of these twinning activities. The E-learning platform was modified, tested by a panel of Hungarian and UK surgeons, and was awarded in July 2013 by the European Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education of the European Union of Medical Specialists. As a pilot phase for future national training, 6 Hungarian surgeons from Semmelweis University are being trained; E-learning platform was fulfilled, and practical sessions, training-on-the-job activities, and evaluations of technical skills are ongoing. The first national practical session was recently organized in Budapest, and the new series of nationwide selected candidates completed the E-learning platform before the practical. There is great potential for sharing best practices and for direct transfer of expertise at the European level, and especially to export this standardized training in organ retrieval to other European countries and even broader. The final goal was to not only provide a national training to all countries lacking such a program but also to improve the quality and safety criteria of organs to be transplanted.