Towards a Standardization of Learning Curve Assessment in Minimally Invasive Liver Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: The aim was to analyze the learning curves of minimal invasive liver surgery(MILS) and propose a standardized reporting. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: MILS offers benefits compared to open resections. For a safe introduction along the learning curve, formal training is recommended. However, definitions of learning curves and methods to assess it lack standardization. METHODS: A systematic review of PubMed, Web of Science, and CENTRAL databases identified studies on learning curves in MILS. The primary outcome was the number needed to overcome the learning curve. Secondary outcomes included endpoints defining learning curves, and characterization of different learning phases(competency, proficiency and mastery). RESULTS: 60 articles with 12'241 patients and 102 learning curve analyses were included. The laparoscopic and robotic approach was evaluated in 71 and 18 analyses and both approaches combined in 13 analyses. Sixty-one analyses (60%) based the learning curve on statistical calculations. The most often used parameters to define learning curves were operative time (n=64), blood loss (n=54), conversion (n=42) and postoperative complications (n=38). Overall competency, proficiency and mastery were reached after 34 (IQR 19-56), 50 (IQR 24-74), 58 (IQR 24-100) procedures respectively. Intraoperative parameters improved earlier (operative time: competency to proficiency to mastery: -13%, 2%; blood loss: competency to proficiency to mastery: -33%, 0%; conversion rate (competency to proficiency to mastery; -21%, -29%), whereas postoperative complications improved later (competency to proficiency to mastery: -25%, -41%). CONCLUSIONS: This review summarizes the highest evidence on learning curves in MILS taking into account different definitions and confounding factors. A standardized three-phase reporting of learning phases (competency, proficiency, mastery) is proposed and should be followed.

Development and validity evidence of an objective structured assessment of technical skills score for minimally invasive linear-stapled, hand-sewn intestinal anastomoses: the A-OSATS score.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to develop a reliable objective structured assessment of technical skills (OSATS) score for linear-stapled, hand-sewn closure of enterotomy intestinal anastomoses (A-OSATS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Delphi methodology was used to create a traditional and weighted A-OSATS score highlighting the more important steps for patient outcomes according to an international expert consensus. Minimally invasive novices, intermediates, and experts were asked to perform a minimally invasive linear-stapled intestinal anastomosis with hand-sewn closure of the enterotomy in a live animal model either laparoscopically or robot-assisted. Video recordings were scored by two blinded raters assessing intrarater and interrater reliability and discriminative abilities between novices (n = 8), intermediates (n = 24), and experts (n = 8). RESULTS: The Delphi process included 18 international experts and was successfully completed after 4 rounds. A total of 4 relevant main steps as well as 15 substeps were identified and a definition of each substep was provided. A maximum of 75 points could be reached in the unweighted A-OSATS score and 170 points in the weighted A-OSATS score respectively. A total of 41 anastomoses were evaluated. Excellent intrarater (r = 0.807-0.988, p < 0.001) and interrater (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.923-0.924, p < 0.001) reliability was demonstrated. Both versions of the A-OSATS correlated well with the general OSATS and discriminated between novices, intermediates, and experts defined by their OSATS global rating scale. CONCLUSION: With the weighted and unweighted A-OSATS score, we propose a new reliable standard to assess the creation of minimally invasive linear-stapled, hand-sewn anastomoses based on an international expert consensus. Validity evidence in live animal models is provided in this study. Future research should focus on assessing whether the weighted A-OSATS exceeds the predictive capabilities of patient outcomes of the unweighted A-OSATS and provide further validity evidence on using the score on different anastomotic techniques in humans.

Assessment of Textbook Outcome in Laparoscopic and Open Liver Surgery.

Importance: Textbook outcome (TO) is a composite measure that captures the most desirable surgical outcomes as a single indicator, yet to date TO has not been defined and assessed in the field of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) and open liver resection (OLR). Objective: To obtain international agreement on the definition of TO in liver surgery (TOLS) and to assess the incidence of TO in LLR and OLR in a large international multicenter database using a propensity-score matched analysis. Design, Setting, and Participants: Patients undergoing LLR or OLR for all liver diseases between January 2011 and October 2019 were analyzed using a large international multicenter liver surgical database. An international survey was conducted among all members of the European-African Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association (E-AHPBA) and International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association (IHPBA) to reach agreement on the definition of TOLS. The rate of TOLS was assessed for LLR and OLR before and after propensity-score matching. Factors associated with achieving TOLS were investigated. Main Outcomes and Measures: Textbook outcome, with TOLS defined as the absence of intraoperative incidents of grade 2 or higher, postoperative bile leak grade B or C, severe postoperative complications, readmission within 30 days after discharge, in-hospital mortality, and the presence of R0 resection margin. Results: A total of 8188 patients (4559 LLR; median age, 65 years [interquartile range, 55-73 years]; 2529 were male [55.8%] and 3629 OLR; median age, 64 years [interquartile range, 56-71 years]; 2204 were male [60.7%]) were included in the analysis of whom 69.1% achieved TOLS; 74.8% for LLR and 61.9% for OLR (P < .001). On multivariable analysis, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade III, previous abdominal surgery, histological diagnosis of colorectal liver metastases (odds ratio [OR], 0.656 [95% CI, 0.457-0.940]; P = .02), cholangiocarcinoma, non-CRLM, a tumor size of 30 mm or more, minor resection of posterior/superior segments (OR, 0.716 [95% CI, 0.577-0.887]; P = .002), anatomically major resection (OR, 0.579 [95% CI, 0.418-0.803]; P = .001), and nonanatomical resection (OR, 0.612 [95% CI, 0.476-0.788]; P < .001) were associated with a worse TOLS rate after LLR. For OLR, only histological diagnosis of cholangiocarcinoma (OR, 0.360 [95% CI, 0.214-0.607]; P < .001) and a tumor size of 30 mm or more (30-50 mm = OR, 0.718 [95% CI, 0.565-0.911]; P = .01; 50.1-100 mm = OR, 0.729 [95% CI, 0.554-0.960]; P = .02; >10 cm = OR, 0.550 [95% CI, 0.366-0.826]; P = .004) were associated with a worse TOLS rate. Conclusions and Relevance: In this multicenter study, TOLS was found to be a useful tool for assessing patient-level hospital performance and may have utility in optimizing patient outcomes after LLR and OLR.

Resectability of Pancreatic Cancer Is in the Eye of the Observer: A Multicenter, Blinded, Prospective Assessment of Interobserver Agreement on NCCN Resectability Status Criteria.

Objectives: To determine the reproducibility of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) resectability status classification for pancreatic cancer. Background: The NCCN classification defines 3 resectability classes (resectable, borderline resectable, locally advanced), according to vascular invasion. It is used to recommend different approaches and stratify patients during clinical trials. Methods: Prospective, multicenter, observational study (trial ID: NCT03673423). Main outcome measure was the interobserver agreement of tumor assignment to different resectability classes and quantification of vascular invasion degrees. Agreement was measured by Fleiss' k (k = 1 perfect agreement; k = 0 agreement by chance). Sixty-nine computed tomography (CT) scans of pathologically confirmed pancreatic adenocarcinoma were independently reviewed in a blinded fashion by 22 observers from 11 hospitals (11 surgeons and 11 radiologists). Rating differences between surgeons or radiologists and between hospitals with different volumes (≥60 or <60 resections/year) were assessed. Results: Complete agreement among 22 observers was recorded in 5 CT scans (7.2%), whereas 25 CT scans (36.2%) were variously assigned to all 3 resectability classes. Interobserver agreement varied from fair to moderate (Fleiss' k range: 0.282-0.555), with the lowest agreement for borderline resectable tumors. Assessing vascular contact ≤180° had the lowest agreement for all vessels (k range: 0.196-0.362). The highest concordance was recorded for venous invasion >180° (k range: 0.619-0.756). Neither reviewers' specialty nor hospital volume influenced the agreement. Conclusions: There is high variability in the assignment to resectability categories, which may compromise the reliability of treatments recommendations and the evidence of trials stratifying patients in resectability classes. Criteria should be revised to allow a reproducible classification.

Does center or surgeon volume influence adoption of minimally invasive versus open pancreatoduodenectomy? A systematic review and meta-regression.

BACKGROUND: There has been increasing uptake of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy during the past decade, but it remains a highly specialized procedure as benefits over open pancreatoduodenectomy remain contentious. This study aimed to evaluate current evidence on minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy versus open pancreatoduodenectomy in terms of impact of center volume on outcomes. METHODS: A systematic review of articles on comparative cohort and registry studies on minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy versus open pancreatoduodenectomy published until 31st December 2019 were identified, and meta-analyses were performed. Primary endpoints were International Study Group on Pancreatic Fistula grade B/C postoperative pancreatic fistula and 30-day mortality. RESULTS: After screening 7,390 studies, 43 comparative cohort studies (8,755 patients) with moderate methodological quality and 3 original registry studies (43,735 patients) were included. For the cohort studies, the median annual hospital minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy volume was 10. No significant differences were found in grade B/C postoperative pancreatic fistula (odds ratio: 0.98, 95% confidence interval: 0.78-1.23) or 30-day mortality (odds ratio: 1.14, 95% confidence interval: 0.65-2.01) between minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy when compared with open. No publication biases were present and meta-regression identified no confounding for grade B/C postoperative pancreatic fistula, center volume or 30-day mortality. Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy was only strongly associated with significantly lower rates of postoperative pulmonary complications and surgical site infection, shorter length of stay, and significantly higher rates of R0 margin resections. CONCLUSION: Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy remains noninferior to open pancreatoduodenectomy for grade B/C postoperative pancreatic fistula but is strongly associated with significantly lower rates of postoperative pulmonary complications and surgical site infection. Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy can be adopted safely with good outcomes irrespective of annual center resection volume.

Implementation of enhanced recovery after surgery for pancreatoduodenectomy increases the proportion of patients achieving textbook outcome: A retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) for patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy is associated with reduced length of stay (LOS) and morbidity. However, external validating of the impact is difficult due to the multimodal aspects of ERAS. This study aimed to assess implementation of ERAS for pancreatoduodenectomy with a composite measure of multiple ideal outcome indicators defined as 'textbook outcome' (TBO). METHODS: In a tertiary referral center, 250 patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy were included in ERAS (May 2012-January 2017) and compared to a cohort of 125 patients undergoing traditional perioperative management (November 2009-April 2012). TBO was defined as proportion of patients without prolonged LOS, Clavien-Dindo ≥ III complications, postoperative pancreatic fistula, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage, bile leakage, readmissions or 30-day/in-hospital mortality. Additionally, overall treatment costs were calculated and compared using bootstrap independent t-test. RESULTS: The two cohorts were comparable in terms of demographic and surgical details. Implementation of ERAS was associated with reduced median LOS (10 days vs 13 days, p < 0.001) and comparable overall complication rate (62.0% vs 61.6%, p = 0.940) when compared to the traditional management group. In addition, a higher proportion of patients achieved TBO (56.4% vs 44.0%, p = 0.023) when treated according to ERAS principles. Furthermore, ERAS was associated with reduced mean total costs (£18132 vs £19385, p < 0.005). CONCLUSION: Implementation of ERAS for patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy is beneficial for both patients and hospitals. ERAS increased the proportion of patients achieving TBO and reduced overall costs. TBO is a potential measure for the evaluation of ERAS.

DIPLOMA Approach for Standardized Pathology Assessment of Distal Pancreatectomy Specimens.

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is one of the most lethal malignant cancers. A minority (20%) of PDACs are found in the pancreatic body and tail. Accurate pathology assessment of the pancreatic specimen is essential for providing prognostic information and it may guide further treatment strategies. The recent 8th edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer/Union for International Cancer Control (AJCC/UICC) staging system for pancreatic tumors has incorporated significant changes to tumor (pT) stage, which is predominantly based on tumor size. This change emphasizes the importance of careful block selection. Owing to the greater prevalence of tumors in the head of the pancreas, efforts are made to standardize the assessment of pancreatoduodenectomy specimens. However, consensus regarding the macroscopic assessment of distal (i.e., left) pancreatectomy specimens is lacking. The DIPLOMA approach includes the standardized measurement of pancreas and other resected organs, inking of relevant surgical margins and anatomical surfaces without removing covering layers of fat, measurement of tumor size (for T-stage), together with assessment of splenic vessel involvement (and other organs if present). All relevant margins are assessed, and relevant blocks are selected to confirm these parameters microscopically. The current protocol describes a standardized approach to the macroscopic assessment of distal pancreatectomy specimens. This approach was developed during several meetings with pathologists and surgeons during the preparation phase for an international multicenter trial (DIPLOMA, ISRCTN44897265), which focuses on radicality of distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. This standardized approach can be instrumental in the design of studies and will uniform reporting on the outcomes of distal pancreatectomy. The described technique is used in the DIPLOMA trial for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma but may also be useful for other indications.

PET-PANC: multicentre prospective diagnostic accuracy and health economic analysis study of the impact of combined modality 18fluorine-2-fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose positron emission tomography with computed tomography scanning in the diagnosis and management of pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic cancer diagnosis and staging can be difficult in 10-20% of patients. Positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) adds precise anatomical localisation to functional data. The use of PET/CT may add further value to the diagnosis and staging of pancreatic cancer. OBJECTIVE: To determine the incremental diagnostic accuracy and impact of PET/CT in addition to standard diagnostic work-up in patients with suspected pancreatic cancer. DESIGN: A multicentre prospective diagnostic accuracy and clinical value study of PET/CT in suspected pancreatic malignancy. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with suspected pancreatic malignancy. INTERVENTIONS: All patients to undergo PET/CT following standard diagnostic work-up. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the incremental diagnostic value of PET/CT in addition to standard diagnostic work-up with multidetector computed tomography (MDCT). Secondary outcomes were (1) changes in patients' diagnosis, staging and management as a result of PET/CT; (2) changes in the costs and effectiveness of patient management as a result of PET/CT; (3) the incremental diagnostic value of PET/CT in chronic pancreatitis; (4) the identification of groups of patients who would benefit most from PET/CT; and (5) the incremental diagnostic value of PET/CT in other pancreatic tumours. RESULTS: Between 2011 and 2013, 589 patients with suspected pancreatic cancer underwent MDCT and PET/CT, with 550 patients having complete data and in-range PET/CT. Sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer were 88.5% and 70.6%, respectively, for MDCT and 92.7% and 75.8%, respectively, for PET/CT. The maximum standardised uptake value (SUVmax.) for a pancreatic cancer diagnosis was 7.5. PET/CT demonstrated a significant improvement in relative sensitivity (p = 0.01) and specificity (p = 0.023) compared with MDCT. Incremental likelihood ratios demonstrated that PET/CT significantly improved diagnostic accuracy in all scenarios (p < 0.0002). PET/CT correctly changed the staging of pancreatic cancer in 56 patients (p = 0.001). PET/CT influenced management in 250 (45%) patients. PET/CT stopped resection in 58 (20%) patients who were due to have surgery. The benefit of PET/CT was limited in patients with chronic pancreatitis or other pancreatic tumours. PET/CT was associated with a gain in quality-adjusted life-years of 0.0157 (95% confidence interval -0.0101 to 0.0430). In the base-case model PET/CT was seen to dominate MDCT alone and is thus highly likely to be cost-effective for the UK NHS. PET/CT was seen to be most cost-effective for the subgroup of patients with suspected pancreatic cancer who were thought to be resectable. CONCLUSION: PET/CT provided a significant incremental diagnostic benefit in the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer and significantly influenced the staging and management of patients. PET/CT had limited utility in chronic pancreatitis and other pancreatic tumours. PET/CT is likely to be cost-effective at current reimbursement rates for PET/CT to the UK NHS. This was not a randomised controlled trial and therefore we do not have any information from patients who would have undergone MDCT only for comparison. In addition, there were issues in estimating costs for PET/CT. Future work should evaluate the role of PET/CT in intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm and prognosis and response to therapy in patients with pancreatic cancer. STUDY REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN73852054 and UKCRN 8166. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND: A recent Cochrane review compared laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy for people with for cancers of the body and tail of the pancreas and found that laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy may reduce the length of hospital stay. We compared the cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy versus open distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic cancer. METHOD: Model based cost-utility analysis estimating mean costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) per patient from the perspective of the UK National Health Service. A decision tree model was constructed using probabilities, outcomes and cost data from published sources. A time horizon of 5 years was used. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were undertaken. RESULTS: The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that the incremental net monetary benefit was positive (£3,708.58 (95% confidence intervals (CI) -£9,473.62 to £16,115.69) but the 95% CI includes zero, indicating that there is significant uncertainty about the cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy versus open distal pancreatectomy. The probability laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy was cost-effective compared to open distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic cancer was between 70% and 80% at the willingness-to-pay thresholds generally used in England (£20,000 to £30,000 per QALY gained). Results were sensitive to the survival proportions and the operating time. CONCLUSIONS: There is considerable uncertainty about whether laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is cost-effective compared to open distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic cancer in the NHS setting.

Implementation of enhanced recovery programme for laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: feasibility, safety and cost analysis.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: The adoption of laparoscopy for distal pancreatectomy has proven to substantially improve short-term outcomes. Stress response after major surgery can be further minimized within an enhanced recovery programme (ERP). However, data on the potential benefit of an ERP for laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy are still lacking. The aim was to assess the feasibility, safety and cost of ERP for patients undergoing laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. METHODS: This is a case-control study from a Tertiary University Hospital. Sixty-six consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy were analyzed. Twenty-two patients were enrolled for the ERP and compared with previous consecutive 44 patients managed traditionally (1:2 ratio). Operative details, post-operative outcome and cost analysis were compared in the two groups. RESULTS: Patients enrolled in the ERP had similar intraoperative blood loss (median 165 ml vs. 200 ml; p = 0.176), operation time (225 min vs. 210 min; p = 0.633), time to remove naso-gastric tube (1 vs. 1 day; p = 0.081) but significantly shorter time to mobilization (median 1 vs. 2 days; p = 0.0001), start solid diet (2 vs. 3 days; p = 0004), and pass stools (3 vs. 5 days; p = 0.002) compared to the control group. Median length of stay was significantly shorter in the ERP group (3 vs. 6 days; p < 0.0001). No significant difference in readmission or complication rate was observed. Cost analysis was significantly in favor of the ERP group (p = 0.0004). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of ERP optimizes outcomes for laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy with significant earlier return to normal gut function, reduced length of stay and cost saving.

Assessment of the financial implications for laparoscopic liver surgery: a single-centre UK cost analysis for minor and major hepatectomy.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic hepatectomy is progressively gaining popularity. However, it is still unclear whether the laparoscopic approach offers cost advantages compared with the open approach, especially when major hepatectomies are required. Data providing useful insights into the costs of the laparoscopic approach for clinicians and hospitals are needed. The aim of this study is to assess the financial implications of the laparoscopic approach for two standardized minor and major hepatectomies: left lateral sectionectomy and right hepatectomy. METHODS: A cost comparison analysis of patients undergoing laparoscopic right hepatectomy (LRH) and laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy (LLLS) versus the open counterparts was performed. Data considered for the comparison analysis were operative costs (theatre cost, consumables and surgeon/anaesthetic labour cost), postoperative costs (hospital stay, complication management and readmissions) and overall costs. RESULTS: A total of 149 patients were included: 38 patients underwent LRH and 46 open right hepatectomy (ORH); 46 patients underwent LLLS and 19 open left lateral sectionectomy (OLLS). For LRH the mean operative, postoperative and overall costs were £10,181, £4,037 and £14,218; for ORH the mean operative, postoperative and overall costs were £6,483 (p < 0.0001), £10,304 (p < 0.0001) and £16,787 (p = 0.886). Regarding LLLS, the mean operative, postoperative and overall costs were £5,460, £2,599 and £8,059; for OLLS the mean operative, postoperative and overall costs were £5,841 (p = 0.874), £5,796 (p < 0.0001) and £11,637 (p = 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Our data support the cost advantage of the laparoscopic approach for left lateral sectionectomy and the cost neutrality for right hepatectomy.

A simple prophylaxis regimen for MRSA: its impact on the incidence of infection in patients undergoing liver resection.

INTRODUCTION: Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infection has increased at an alarming rate in the recent past and has major cost implications. The aim of this study is to assess the impact of a policy of pre-operative MRSA prophylaxis on the incidence of MRSA infection in patients undergoing liver resection. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 585 patients underwent hepatectomy in a tertiary referral centre between January 2000 and September 2005. In September 2003, a policy of MRSA prophylaxis (nasal mupirocin and triclosan wash for 5 days) was introduced within this unit. Demographic, pathological and outcome data were compared between the pre- and post-MRSA prophylaxis cohorts. RESULTS: The prevalence of MRSA infection prior to initiating the prophylaxis protocol was 29 patients (8.3%) and this fell to 9 patients (3.8%; P = 0.029). Furthermore, patients who had MRSA-related infection had a higher incidence of additional complications compared to the rest of the cohort (P = 0.001). Total cost savings incurred as a result of this protocol over the past 2 years has been approximated at 28,893 pounds. CONCLUSIONS: Introduction of a simple MRSA prophylaxis policy has had a significant reduction on the incidence MRSA-related infection within our patient population, leading to reduced morbidity and cost saving to the UK National Health Service.