Surgical skills assessment of pancreaticojejunostomy using a simulator may predict patient outcomes: A multicenter prospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatoduodenectomy, an advanced surgical procedure with a high complication rate, requires surgical skill in performing pancreaticojejunostomy, which correlates with operative outcomes. We aimed to analyze the correlation between pancreaticojejunostomy assessment conducted in a simulator environment and the operating room and patient clinical outcomes. METHODS: We recruited 30 surgeons (with different experience levels in pancreatoduodenectomy) from 11 institutes. Three trained blinded raters assessed the videos of the pancreaticojejunostomy procedure performed in the operating room using a simulator according to an objective structured assessment of technical skill and a newly developed pancreaticojejunostomy assessment scale. The correlations between the assessment score of the pancreaticojejunostomy performed in the operating room and using the simulator and between each assessment score and patient outcomes were calculated. The participants were also surveyed regarding various aspects of the simulator as a training tool. RESULTS: There was no correlation between the average score of the pancreaticojejunostomy performed in the operating room and that in the simulator environment (r = 0.047). Pancreaticojejunostomy scores using the simulator were significantly lower in patients with postoperative pancreatic fistula than in those without postoperative pancreatic fistula (P = .05). Multivariate analysis showed that pancreaticojejunostomy assessment scores were independent factors in postoperative pancreatic fistula (P = .09). The participants highly rated the simulator and considered that it had the potential to be used for training. CONCLUSION: There was no correlation between pancreaticojejunostomy surgical performance in the operating room and the simulation environment. Surgical skills evaluated in the simulation setting could predict patient surgical outcomes.

Binding versus Conventional Pancreaticojejunostomy in Preventing Postoperative Pancreatic Fistula: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy of a new technology, binding pancreaticojejunostomy (BPJ), with conventional pancreaticojejunostomy (CPJ) after pancreaticoduodenectomy in preventing postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF). METHODS: Randomized controlled trials and observational studies were retrieved from literature searches. Pooled OR with 95% CI for dichotomous variables and weighted mean difference with 95% CI for continuous variables were calculated. Fixed-effect and random-effect models as well as subgroup analysis were used for sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences were found in the incidence of POPF, delayed gastric emptying, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage, reoperation, morbidity, mortality, operation time, intraoperative blood loss, blood transfusion, and hospital stay between 2 groups. However, the total costs of hospitalization and ordinary stay were higher in BPJ group (€10,513 ± €6,536 vs. €8,238 ± €4,687, p = 0.002; €7,946 ± €5,023 vs. €5,700 ± €2,902, p = 0.015, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed BPJ was as safe as CPJ. However, no significant superiority was found in BPJ group regarding the incidence of POPF. The total costs of hospital stay were higher for patients undergoing BPJ. Surgeons can prefer to perform the digestive tract reconstruction of their choice.

Analysis of pancreatic fistula according to the International Study Group on Pancreatic Fistula classification scheme for 294 patients who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy in a single center.

OBJECTIVES: The purposes of this study were to validate the value of the International Study Group on Pancreatic Fistula (ISGPF) classification scheme for pancreatic fistula (PF) and to identify predictive factors for clinically significant PF. METHODS: From January 2000 to December 2007, 294 consecutive patients underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy in a single medical center. Pancreatic fistula was evaluated by the ISGPF criteria and Johns Hopkins Hospital's definition (JHH). Then, logistic regression analysis was performed to identify predictive factors for PF development. Our own management strategies with PF were also discussed. RESULTS: The overall incidence of PF was 19.4% (57/294) according to the ISGPF criteria, and 8.8% (26/294) using the JHH definition. Thirty-one patients with PF classified by the ISGPF were missed by the JHH definition. By logistic regression analysis, we found that besides the lack of cardiovascular disease and malignant diseases, our single-layer continuous circular invaginated pancreaticojejunostomy was another independent factor for the lowered incidence of PF. CONCLUSIONS: The ISGPF classification scheme was accurate for evaluating PF. Single-layer continuous circular invaginated pancreaticojejunostomy may be a promising method that may have been responsible for the lower incidence of PF in this study.