RESUMO
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.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive total gastrectomy (MITG) is a mainstay for curative treatment of patients with gastric cancer. To define and standardize optimal surgical techniques and further improve clinical outcomes through the enhanced MITG surgical quality, there must be consensus on the key technical steps of lymphadenectomy and anastomosis creation, which is currently lacking. This study aimed to determine an expert consensus from an international panel regarding the technical aspects of the performance of MITG for oncological indications using the Delphi method. METHODS: A 100-point scoping survey was created based on the deconstruction of MITG into its key technical steps through local and international expert opinion and literature evidence. An international expert panel comprising upper gastrointestinal and general surgeons participated in multiple rounds of a Delphi consensus. The panelists voted on the issues concerning importance, difficulty, or agreement using an online questionnaire. A priori consensus standard was set at > 80% for agreement to a statement. Internal consistency and reliability were evaluated using Cronbach's α. RESULTS: Thirty expert upper gastrointestinal and general surgeons participated in three online Delphi rounds, generating a final consensus of 41 statements regarding MITG for gastric cancer. The consensus was gained from 22, 12, and 7 questions from Delphi rounds 1, 2, and 3, which were rephrased into the 41 statetments respectively. For lymphadenectomy and aspects of anastomosis creation, Cronbach's α for round 1 was 0.896 and 0.886, and for round 2 was 0.848 and 0.779, regarding difficulty or importance. CONCLUSIONS: The Delphi consensus defined 41 steps as crucial for performing a high-quality MITG for oncological indications based on the standards of an international panel. The results of this consensus provide a platform for creating and validating surgical quality assessment tools designed to improve clinical outcomes and standardize surgical quality in MITG.