An international Delphi consensus for surgical quality assessment of lymphadenectomy and anastomosis in minimally invasive total gastrectomy for gastric cancer.

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.

Accreditation of specialized surgical units in general and digestive surgery: A step forward by the AEC for quality improvement and subspecialized Fellowship training.

At present, in daily practice, the Departments of Surgery in most hospitals in Spain are organized into "Specialized Surgical Units", including specific structure, human resources, organization, teaching and research in the different subspecialties included in General and Digestive Surgery (GDS). Furthermore, there are also several specialized "fellowship-like", training programs in the different subspecialties already working in some of these "Specialized Surgical Units", although not officially financed. However, until now there was no model for accreditation or recognition of these Units or fellowship programs. The AEC has designed a regulation for the accreditation of Specialized Surgical Units in GDS, that will also serve as a model to define subspecialty training in these areas. The accreditation process, and with it, the process of quality improvement, includes different quality indicators, including unit structure, process quality, and result indicators.

Effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery for gallstones and common bile duct lithiasis: a systematic overview / Efectividad de la cirugía laparoscópica para colecistolitiasis y coledocolitiasis: revisión global de la evidencia

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the available evidence on the effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery for treating gallstones and common bile duct lithiasis (CBDL). A systematic overview was performed. Medline, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library were searched (1998-2008). Systematic reviews (SR), clinical practice guidelines (CPG), randomised clinical trials (RCT) and observational studies were included. Internal validity and overall quality of the evidence were assessed. The available evidence was classified according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence Based Medicine proposal. 87 studies were included in this review (12 SR, 23 RCT, 3 CPG, 13 cohort studies, 3 cross-sectional studies, 2 case and control studies and 31 case series). Compared with open cholecystectomy, laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is associated with shorter operating time, shorter hospital stay and better quality of life (high quality evidence). The use of antibiotic prophylaxis does not appear to reduce the infection rate in low-risk patients (high quality evidence). Although many techniques have been advocated to perform LC their effectiveness is as yet inconclusive (low-quality evidence). Two-stage surgery is the most appropriate strategy for high-risk patients with CBDL (high-quality evidence). Mortality is similar to open surgery, as the effectiveness is similar to that of endoscopic treatment (high-quality evidence). As a conclusion we can state that the evidence concerning the effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery for gallstones and CBDL is scarce and of low methodological quality and that better quality studies are warranted to assess these techniques more adequately.

El objetivo del presente estudio fue evaluar la evidencia disponible respecto de la efectividad de la cirugía laparoscópica en el tratamiento de la colelitiasis y la litiasis de la vía biliar (LVBP). Para ello, se realizó una revisión global de la evidencia disponible. Se realizaron búsquedas en las bases de datos MEDLINE, EMBASE y The Cochrane Library (1998-2008). Se incluyeron guías de práctica clínica (GPC), revisiones sistemáticas (RS), ensayos clínicos con asignación aleatoria (EC) y estudios observacionales. Se valoró la validez interna y la calidad global de los estudios. Los datos disponibles y la evidencia generada se clasificaron en base a la propuesta del Centro de Oxford de Medicina Basada en la Evidencia. 87 estudios fueron incluidos en esta revisión (3 GPC, 12 RS, 23 EC, 13 estudios de cohortes, 3 estudios transversales, 2 estudios de casos y de controles y 31 series de casos). En comparación con la colecistectomía abierta, la colecistectomía laparoscópica (CL) se asocia con menor tiempo operatorio y estancia hospitalaria y mejor calidad de vida (evidencia de alta calidad). El uso de profilaxis antibiótica no parece reducir la tasa de infección en pacientes de bajo riesgo (evidencia de alta calidad). Aunque se han descrito numerosas técnicas para realizar una CL, su eficacia no es aún concluyente (evidencia de baja calidad). La cirugía en dos etapas es la estrategia más adecuada para los pacientes de alto riesgo con LVBP (evidencia de alta calidad). La mortalidad del tratamiento laparoscópico de la LVBP es similar a la de la cirugía abierta; y como su eficacia es similar a la del tratamiento endoscópico (evidencia de alta calidad). Se puede concluir señalando que la evidencia disponible respecto de la efectividad de la cirugía laparoscópica para el tratamiento de la colelitiasis y la LVBP es escasa y de baja calidad metodológica; y que se requieren estudios de mejor calidad para valorar de forma más apropiada estas técnicas.

Energy sources for laparoscopic colectomy: a prospective randomized comparison of conventional electrosurgery, bipolar computer-controlled electrosurgery and ultrasonic dissection. Operative outcome and costs analysis.

The development of operative laparoscopic surgery is linked to advances in ancillary surgical instrumentation. Ultrasonic energy devices avoid the use of electricity and provide effective control of small- to medium-sized vessels. Bipolar computer-controlled electrosurgical technology eliminates the disadvantages of electrical energy, and a mechanical blade adds a cutting action. This instrument can provide effective hemostasis of large vessels up to 7 mm. Such devices significantly increase the cost of laparoscopic procedures, however, and the amount of evidence-based information on this topic is surprisingly scarce. This study compared the effectiveness of three different energy sources on the laparoscopic performance of a left colectomy. The trial included 38 nonselected patients with a disease of the colon requiring an elective segmental left-sided colon resection. Patients were preoperatively randomized into three groups. Group I had electrosurgery; vascular dissection was performed entirely with an electrosurgery generator, and vessels were controlled with clips. Group II underwent computer-controlled bipolar electrosurgery; vascular and mesocolon section was completed by using the 10-mm Ligasure device alone. In group III, 5-mm ultrasonic shears (Harmonic Scalpel) were used for bowel dissection, vascular pedicle dissection, and mesocolon transection. The mesenteric vessel pedicle was controlled with an endostapler. Demographics (age, sex, body mass index, comorbidity, previous surgery and diagnoses requiring surgery) were recorded, as were surgical details (operative time, conversion, blood loss), additional disposable instruments (number of trocars, EndoGIA charges, and clip appliers), and clinical outcome. Intraoperative economic costs were also evaluated. End points of the trial were operative time and intraoperative blood loss, and an intention-to-treat principle was followed. The three groups were well matched for demographic and pathologic features. Surgical time was significantly longer in patients operated on with conventional electrosurgery vs the Harmonic Scalpel or computed-based bipolar energy devices. This finding correlated with a significant reduction in intraoperative blood loss. Conversion to other endoscopic techniques was more frequent in Group I; however, conversion to open surgery was similar in all three groups. No intraoperative accident related to the use of the specific device was observed in any group. Immediate outcome was similar in the three groups, without differences in morbidity, mortality, or hospital stay. Analysis of operative costs showed no significant differences between the three groups. High-energy power sources specifically adapted for endoscopic surgery reduce operative time and blood loss and may be considered cost-effective when left colectomy is used as a model.