Mastery skill assessment in hepato-pancreato-biliary surgical ultrasound: It's a Matter of Entrustment.

BACKGROUND: A formative hepato-pancreato-biliary (HPB) ultrasound (US) skills practicum is offered annually to graduating HPB fellows, using entrustment assessments for open (IOUS) and laparoscopic (LAPUS) US. It is hypothesized that validity evidence will support the use of these assessments to determine if graduating fellows are well prepared to perform HPB US independently. METHODS: Expert faculty were surveyed to set Mastery Entrustment standards for fellow performance. Standards were applied to fellow performances during two annual US skills practicums. RESULTS: 11 faculty questionnaires were included. Mean Entrustment cut scores across all items were 4.9/5.0 and 4.8/5.0 and Global Entrustment cut scores were 5.0/5.0 and 4.8/5.0 for IOUS and LAPUS, respectively. 78.5% (29/37) fellows agreed to have their de-identified data evaluated. Mean fellow Entrustments (across all skills) were 4.1 (SD 0.6; 2.6-4.9) and 3.9 (SD 0.7; 2.7-5), while the Global Entrustments were 3.6 (SD 0.8; 2-5) and 3.5 (SD 1.0; 2-5) for IOUS and LAPUS, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Two cohorts of graduating HPB fellows are not meeting Mastery Standards for HPB US performance determined by a panel of expert faculty.

Dynamic frailty: Objective physiological assessment to guide management in necrotizing pancreatitis.

BACKGROUND: Physical frailty as a measure of physiological reserve is an important yet understudied topic in necrotizing pancreatitis. We measured frailty metrics in patients with necrotizing pancreatitis at baseline and at 1 month to assess dynamic change. We hypothesized that greater baseline frailty and steeper decline in frailty biomarkers are associated with worse outcomes in necrotizing pancreatitis. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of an institutional, necrotizing pancreatitis-specific database was performed. First order outcomes were organ failure, infected necrosis, step-up approach failure, and mortality. Baseline frailty assessment included measurement of comorbid diseases (modified frailty index), nutritional status (prognostic nutritional index), and radiologic sarcopenia (psoas muscle index, Hounsfield unit average calculation). Dynamic frailty was evaluated using psoas muscle index and Hounsfield unit average calculation. Significant associations between baseline and dynamic frailty with outcomes were analyzed. RESULTS: Three hundred and forty-one patients were included in this study. Most patients were male (65%) with biliary etiology of necrotizing pancreatitis (46%). Baseline comorbid diseases and baseline sarcopenia were not associated with first order outcomes. Lower baseline prognostic nutritional index was associated with organ failure (P < .001) and infected necrosis (P < .001). After 30 days, 25% of patients became sarcopenic. Larger declines in all sarcopenia metrics were associated with organ failure, infected necrosis, and/or death (P < .05). Lower psoas area and density were independent risk factors for organ failure and infected necrosis. CONCLUSION: Dynamic changes in sarcopenia-focused frailty metrics were significantly and consistently associated with organ failure, infected necrosis, and death. Further development of a dynamic frailty index to objectively guide decision-making in necrotizing pancreatitis is warranted.

Preoperative Nomogram Predicts Non-home Discharge in Patients Undergoing Pancreatoduodenectomy.

BACKGROUND: In patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy, non-home discharge is common and often results in an unnecessary delay in hospital discharge. This study aimed to develop and validate a preoperative prediction model to identify patients with a high likelihood of non-home discharge following pancreatoduodenectomy. METHODS: Patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy from 2013 to 2018 were identified using an institutional database. Patients were categorized according to discharge location (home vs. non-home). Preoperative risk factors, including social determinants of health associated with non-home discharge, were identified using Pearson's chi-squared test and then included in a multiple logistic regression model. A training cohort composed of 80% of the sampled patients was used to create the prediction model, and validation carried out using the remaining 20%. Statistical significance was defined as P < 0.05. RESULTS: Seven hundred sixty-six pancreatoduodenectomy patients met the study criteria for inclusion in the analysis (non-home, 126; home, 640). Independent predictors of non-home discharge on multivariable analysis were age, marital status, mental health diagnosis, functional health status, dyspnea, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The prediction model was then used to generate a nomogram to predict likelihood of non-home discharge. The training and validation cohorts demonstrated comparable performances with an identical area under the curve (0.81) and an accuracy of 84%. CONCLUSION: A prediction model to reliably assess the likelihood of non-home discharge after pancreatoduodenectomy was developed and validated in the present study.

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic cancer is safe and effective.

PURPOSE: To compare the short-term and oncologic outcomes of patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) undergoing laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) and open distal pancreatectomy (ODP). METHODS: Consecutive cases of distal pancreatectomy (DP) (n = 422) were reviewed at a single high-volume institution over a 10-year period (2005-2014). Inclusion criteria consisted of any patient with PDAC by surgical pathology. Ninety-day outcomes were monitored through a prospectively maintained pancreatic resection database. The Social Security Death Index was used for 5-year survival. Two-way statistical analyses were used to compare categories; variance was reported with standard error of the mean; * indicates P value <0.05. RESULTS: Seventy-nine patients underwent DP for PDAC. Thirty-three underwent LDP and 46 ODP. There were no statistical differences in demographics, BMI, and ASA classification. Intraoperative and surgical pathology variables were comparable for LDP versus ODP: operative time (3.9 ± 0.2 vs. 4.2 ± 0.2 h), duct size, gland texture, stump closure, tumor size (3.3 ± 0.3 vs. 4.0 ± 0.4 cm), lymph node harvest (14.5 ± 1.1 vs. 17.5 ± 1.2), tumor stage (see table), and negative surgical margins (77 vs. 87%). Patients who underwent LDP experienced lower blood loss (310 ± 68 vs. 597 ± 95 ml; P = 0.016*) and required fewer transfusions (0 vs. 13; P = 0.0008*). Patients who underwent LDP had fewer positive lymph nodes (0.8 ± 0.2 vs. 1.6 ± 0.3; P = 0.04*) and a lower incidence of type C pancreatic fistula (0 vs. 13%; P = 0.03*). Median follow-up for all patients was 11.4 months. Long-term oncologic outcomes revealed similar outcomes including distant or local recurrence (30 vs. 52%; P = 0.05) and median survival (18 vs. 15 months), as well as 1-year (73 vs. 59%), 3-year (22 vs. 21%), and 5-year (20 vs. 15%) survival for LDP and ODP, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this series suggest that LDP is a safe surgical approach that is comparable from an oncologic standpoint to ODP for the management of pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

Impact of Fellow Versus Resident Assistance on Outcomes Following Pancreatoduodenectomy.

BACKGROUND: Participation by surgical trainees in complex procedures is key to their development as future practicing surgeons. The impact of surgical fellows versus general surgery resident assistance on outcomes in pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) has not been well studied. The purpose of this study was to determine differences in patient outcomes based on level of surgical trainee. METHODS: Consecutive cases of PD (n = 254) were reviewed at a single high-volume institution over a 2-year period (July 2013-June 2015). Thirty-day outcomes were monitored through the American College of Surgeon's National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) and Quality In-Training Initiative. Patient outcomes were compared between PD assisted by general surgery residents versus hepatopancreatobiliary fellows. RESULTS: The hepatopancreatobiliary surgery fellows and general surgery residents participated in 109 and 145 PDs, respectively. The incidence of each individual postoperative complication (renal, infectious, pancreatectomy-specific, and cardiopulmonary), total morbidity, mortality, and failure to rescue were the same between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Patient operative outcomes were the same between fellow- and resident-assisted PD. These results suggest that hepatopancreatobiliary surgery fellows and general surgery residents should be offered the same opportunities to participate in complex general surgery procedures.

Reducing surgical site infections in hepatopancreatobiliary surgery.

OBJECTIVES: Patients undergoing complex hepatopancreatobiliary (HPB) operations are at high risk for surgical site infection (SSI). Factors such as biliary obstruction, operative time and pancreatic or biliary fistulae contribute to the high SSI rate. The purpose of this study was to analyse whether a multifactorial approach would reduce the incidence and cost of SSI after HPB surgery. METHODS: From January 2007 to December 2009, 895 complex HPB operations were monitored for SSI through the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP). In 2008, surgeon-specific SSI rates were provided to HPB surgeons, and guidelines for the management of perioperative factors were established. Observed SSI rates were monitored before and after these interventions. Hospital cost data were analysed and cost savings were calculated. RESULTS: Observed SSI for hepatic, pancreatic and complex biliary operations decreased by 9.6% over a 2-year period (P < 0.03). The excess cost per SSI was US$11 462 and was driven by increased length of stay and hospital readmission for infection. Surgeons rated surgeon-specific feedback on SSI rate as the most important factor in improvement. CONCLUSIONS: High SSI rates following complex HPB operations can be improved by a multifactorial approach that features process improvements, individual surgeon feedback and reduced variation in patient management.

Robotic distal pancreatectomy: cost effective?

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive techniques and even robotics in pancreaticobiliary surgery are being used increasingly. Cost-effectiveness is a practical burden associated with the introduction of surgical innovation. This study compares the costs and the outcomes of open, laparoscopic, and robotic distal pancreatectomies. We hypothesized that robotic distal pancreatectomy is cost-effective. METHODS: Between August 2008 and August 2009, 77 distal pancreatectomies were performed at a single academic medical center. A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data on demographics, short-term outcomes, and direct cost was performed. RESULTS: Thirty-two open distal pancreatectomies, 28 laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies, and 17 robotic distal pancreatectomies were performed. Age, American Society of Anesthesia preoperative risk score, and specimen length were similar. Indications for laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies and robotic distal pancreatectomies included more cystic neoplasms (49%) and fewer malignancies (29%) versus open distal pancreatectomies (16% and 47%). Spleen preservation occurred in 65% robotic distal pancreatectomies versus 12% and 29% in open distal pancreatectomies and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies (P < .05). The operative time averaged 298 minutes in robotic distal pancreatectomies versus 245 and 222 minutes in open distal pancreatectomies and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies (P < .05). Blood loss and morbidity were similar with no mortality. The length of stay was 4 days in robotic distal pancreatectomies versus 8 and 6 in open distal pancreatectomies and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies (P < .05). The total cost was $10,588 in robotic distal pancreatectomies versus $16,059 and $12,986 in open distal pancreatectomies and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies. CONCLUSION: These data suggest direct hospital costs are comparable among all groups. They suggest a shorter length of stay in robotic versus laparoscopic or open approaches. Finally, spleen and vessel preservation rates may improve with a robotic approach at the expense of increased operative time. In summary, robotic distal pancreatectomy is safe and cost effective in selected cases.

Incorporating an HPB fellowship does not diminish surgical residents' HPB experience in a high-volume training centre.

BACKGROUND: Surgical residency training is evolving, and trainees who wish to practice hepato-pancreato-biliary (HPB) surgery in the future will be required to obtain advanced training. As this paradigm evolves, it is crucial that HPB fellowship incorporation into an established surgical residency programme does not diminish surgical residents' exposure to complex HPB procedures. We hypothesized that incorporation of a HPB fellowship in a high-volume clinical training programme would not detract from residents' HPB experience. METHODS: Resident operative case logs and HPB fellow case logs were reviewed. Resident exposure to complex HPB procedures for 3 years prior to and 3 years after fellowship incorporation were compared. RESULTS: No significant changes in surgical resident exposure to liver and pancreatic resection were seen between the two time periods. Surgical resident exposure to complex biliary procedures decreased in the 3 years after HPB fellowship incorporation (P= 0.003); however, exceeded the national average in each year except 2006. Graduating residents' overall HPB experience was unchanged in the 3 years prior to and after incorporating an HPB fellow. Expansion of HPB volume was a critical part of successful HPB fellowship implementation. DISCUSSION: An HPB fellowship programme can be incorporated into a high-volume clinical training programme without detracting from resident HPB experience. Individual training programmes should carefully assess their capability to provide an adequate clinical experience for fellows without diminishing resident exposure to complex HPB procedures.