Learning curve of trans-areola single-site endoscopic thyroidectomy in a high-volume center: A CUSUM-based assessment.

BACKGROUND: Limited attempts have been made in trans-areola single-site endoscopic thyroidectomy (TASSET) due to technical challenges and the lengthy time for proficiency. This study aimed to define the learning curve of TASSET and to describe improvements in operative performance over time. METHODS: Based on 222 consecutive TASSET procedures, the learning curve was established according to the operation time by using cumulative sum analysis (CUSUM). The end-point of learning curve was defined as the number of cases necessitated to reach the initial surgical proficiency stage. The demographic information, surgical and oncological outcomes, surgical stress, and postoperative complications were also analyzed. RESULTS: There were 70 cases of simple lobectomy for benign nodules and 152 cases of lobectomy with central neck dissection (CND) for malignancy. The mean operative time was 106.54 ± 38.07 min (range: 46-274 min). The learning curve identified two phases: the skill acquisition phase (Case 1-Case 41) and the proficiency phase (Case 42-Case 222). There were no significant differences in demographic information, drainage amount and duration, oncological outcomes, and postoperative complications between the two phases (p > 0.05). Both operation time and postoperative hospitalization decreased significantly in Phase 2 (154.63 ± 52.21 vs. 95.64 ± 22.96 min, p < 0.001; 4.12 ± 0.93 vs. 3.65 ± 0.63 days, p < 0.001). Additionally, the mean variations of surgical stress factors (C-reactive protein and erythrocyte sedimentation rate) decreased significantly as the phase progress. The case number required for proficiency phase in benign and malignant tumor were 18 and 33, respectively, and lymph node resection posed a significant impact on the endpoint of the learning curve (p < 0.001). Meanwhile, the size of nodule showed no significant impact (p = 0.622). For right-handed surgeons, 16 cases and 25 cases were required for technical competence in left-sided and right-sided lesions, respectively, and no significant difference reached (p = 0.266). CONCLUSIONS: TASSET has demonstrated safe and technically feasible with comparable oncological outcomes. Experience of 41 cases was required for surgical competence and proficiency. The initial learning stage could be more quickly adopted by high-volume thyroid surgeons with standardized procedures.

Split liver transplantation: a reliable approach to expand donor pool.

BACKGROUND: Orthotopic liver transplantation as a successful treatment of end-stage liver disease is hampered by a persistent lack of cadaveric organs. Split liver transplantation, which was first successfully performed by Medical School of Hannover in 1988, has become a mature surgical technique to expand the donor pool. Between 1993 and 1999, split liver transplantation activities have increased in Europe from 1.2% to 10.4% in all performed liver transplantations. Current data have strongly supported that the survival rate of patients after split liver transplantation is not significantly different from that of patients after whole-size orthotopic liver transplantation. The most important step of donor graft selection is surgeon's observation judged by the experience of individual transplant center. The paper aims to provide the guideline of donor selection, hepatic graft splitting, and recipient management as well. DATA SOURCES: Medical School of Hannover has accumulated plentiful experience of split liver transplantation for more than 10 cases ever since 1998. Besides that, we also reviewed a variety of literatures from other famous European and American centers specialized in this field for many years. RESULTS: According to our experience combined with the view points of others, the donor should meet the following criteria as well: (1) age less than 50 years; (2) hemodynamics stable; (3) ICU less than 5 days; (4) Na less than 170 mmol/L or better if less than 150 mmol/L. In 1996 and 1997, the Hamburg group and the UCLA group separately introduced a breakthrough technique performing split liver transplantation in situ. Evidently, the in situ technique has been limited by prolonged time of donor organ procurement, coordination with other organ procurement teams, and even extra burden on donor hospital. Some groups, therefore, have restored the ex situ or bench splitting technique, and fortunately the transplant outcomes of the ex situ technique are equivalent to those of the in situ one. Recently some new techniques have been introduced to split the liver for two adult patients, including the split-cava technique. CONCLUSIONS: It is clear that the most important factor for determining the prognosis of the patient is the time of receiving liver transplantation, not the type of liver transplantation. We still need to pay close attention to the graft to recipient weight ratio (GRWR) and the UNOS classification or MELD score before the patient is subjected to split liver transplantation.