Toward a new paradigm of care: a surgical leaders' Delphi consensus on the organizational factors of the new pancreas units (E-AHPBA PUECOF study).

Pancreas units represent new organizational models of care that are now at the center of the European debate. The PUECOF study, endorsed by the European-African Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association (E-AHPBA), aims to reach an expert consensus by enquiring surgical leaders about the Pancreas Units' most relevant organizational factors, with 30 surgical leaders from 14 countries participating in the Delphi survey. Results underline that surgeons believe in the need to organize multidisciplinary meetings, nurture team leadership, and create metrics. Clinical professionals and patients are considered the most relevant stakeholders, while the debate is open when considering different subjects like industry leaders and patient associations. Non-technical skills such as ethics, teamwork, professionalism, and leadership are highly considered, with mentoring, clinical cases, and training as the most appreciated facilitating factors. Surgeons show trust in functional leaders, key performance indicators, and the facilitating role played by nurse navigators and case managers. Pancreas units have a high potential to improve patients' outcomes. While the pancreas unit model of care will not change the technical content of pancreatic surgery, it may bring surgeons several benefits, including more cases, professional development, easier coordination, less stress, and opportunities to create fruitful connections with research institutions and industry leaders.

Study International Multicentric Pancreatic Left Resections (SIMPLR): Does Surgical Approach Matter?

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive surgery is increasingly preferred for left-sided pancreatic resections. The SIMPLR study aims to compare open, laparoscopic, and robotic approaches using propensity score matching analysis. METHODS: This study included 258 patients with tumors of the left side of the pancreas who underwent surgery between 2016 and 2020 at three high-volume centers. The patients were divided into three groups based on their surgical approach and matched in a 1:1 ratio. RESULTS: The open group had significantly higher estimated blood loss (620 mL vs. 320 mL, p < 0.001), longer operative time (273 vs. 216 min, p = 0.003), and longer hospital stays (16.9 vs. 6.81 days, p < 0.001) compared to the laparoscopic group. There was no difference in lymph node yield or resection status. When comparing open and robotic groups, the robotic procedures yielded a higher number of lymph nodes (24.9 vs. 15.2, p = 0.011) without being significantly longer. The laparoscopic group had a shorter operative time (210 vs. 340 min, p < 0.001), shorter ICU stays (0.63 vs. 1.64 days, p < 0.001), and shorter hospital stays (6.61 vs. 11.8 days, p < 0.001) when compared to the robotic group. There was no difference in morbidity or mortality between the three techniques. CONCLUSION: The laparoscopic approach exhibits short-term benefits. The three techniques are equivalent in terms of oncological safety, morbidity, and mortality.

The Brescia Internationally Validated European Guidelines on Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Surgery (EGUMIPS).

OBJECTIVE: To develop and update evidence-based and consensus-based guidelines on laparoscopic and robotic pancreatic surgery. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Minimally invasive pancreatic surgery (MIPS), including laparoscopic and robotic surgery, is complex and technically demanding. Minimizing the risk for patients requires stringent, evidence-based guidelines. Since the International Miami Guidelines on MIPS in 2019, new developments and key publications have been reported, necessitating an update. METHODS: Evidence-based guidelines on 22 topics in 8 domains were proposed: terminology, indications, patients, procedures, surgical techniques and instrumentation, assessment tools, implementation and training, and artificial intelligence. The Brescia Internationally Validated European Guidelines on Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Surgery (EGUMIPS, September 2022) used the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) methodology to assess the evidence and develop guideline recommendations, the Delphi method to establish consensus on the recommendations among the Expert Committee, and the AGREE II-GRS tool for guideline quality assessment and external validation by a Validation Committee. RESULTS: Overall, 27 European experts, 6 international experts, 22 international Validation Committee members, 11 Jury Committee members, 18 Research Committee members, and 121 registered attendees of the 2-day meeting were involved in the development and validation of the guidelines. In total, 98 recommendations were developed, including 33 on laparoscopic, 34 on robotic, and 31 on general MIPS, covering 22 topics in 8 domains. Out of 98 recommendations, 97 reached at least 80% consensus among the experts and congress attendees, and all recommendations were externally validated by the Validation Committee. CONCLUSIONS: The EGUMIPS evidence-based guidelines on laparoscopic and robotic MIPS can be applied in current clinical practice to provide guidance to patients, surgeons, policy-makers, and medical societies.

Status of Women in Neurosurgery: Results from a National Survey in Italy.

Background: Gender inequity in surgery has increasingly been a matter of debate. Contributions of female neurosurgeons to academic medicine and societies are poorly highlighted. The aim of this study was to evaluate several aspects of the professional and work-life balance of female neurosurgeons in Italy. Methods: Data of the female neurosurgical population were extracted from a general 83-item questionnaire administered to a total of 3242 respondents. The survey was composed of multiple-choice questions investigating demographics, surgical training and practice, satisfaction, mentorship, discrimination, and harassment. Results: A total of 98 female neurosurgeons were included. Most responders were married or cohabiting (49%). Thirty-nine (43%) were planning to have children, and 15 of them (44%) stated the reason they still didn't have any was because of professional constraints. Seventy (71%) women were neurosurgeons with an academic position (residents or academics) and 28 (29%) were full-time attendings. Most of the female neurosurgeons are satisfied with their work: sometimes (35%), often (20%), and always or almost always (20%). Most of them (45%) stated they are rarely victims of harassment, but 66% think that they are treated differently because they are women. A similar rate for a poor and fulfilling work-life balance (34% and 35%, respectively) was detected. The majority of participants (89%) had encountered a role model during their career, but in only 11% of cases was that person female. Conclusions: Even though the rate of satisfaction among female neurosurgeons in Italy is high, some of them experienced gender discrimination, including incidents of sexual harassment and microaggressions. Policies including job sharing paradigms, consistent and meaningful options for parental leave, mentorship programs, equal and fair remuneration for equal work, and zero tolerance for harassment should be encouraged.

Survival Study: International Multicentric Minimally Invasive Liver Resection for Colorectal Liver Metastases (SIMMILR-2).

Introduction: Study: International Multicentric Minimally Invasive Liver Resection for Colorectal Liver Metastases (SIMMILR-CRLM) was a propensity score matched (PSM) study that reported short-term outcomes of patients with CRLM who met the Milan criteria and underwent either open (OLR), laparoscopic (LLR) or robotic liver resection (RLR). This study, designated as SIMMILR-2, reports the long-term outcomes from that initial study, now referred to as SIMMILR-1. Methods: Data regarding neoadjuvant chemotherapeutic (NC) and neoadjuvant biological (NB) treatments received were collected, and Kaplan−Meier curves reporting the 5-year overall (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) for OLR, LLR and RLR were created for patients who presented with synchronous lesions only, as there was insufficient follow-up for patients with metachronous lesions. Results: A total of 73% of patients received NC and 38% received NB in the OLR group compared to 70% and 28% in the LLR group, respectively (p = 0.5 and p = 0.08). A total of 82% of patients received NC and 40% received NB in the OLR group compared to 86% and 32% in the RLR group, respectively (p > 0.05). A total of 71% of patients received NC and 53% received NB in the LLR group compared to 71% and 47% in the RLR group, respectively (p > 0.05). OS at 5 years was 34.8% after OLR compared to 37.1% after LLR (p = 0.4), 34.3% after OLR compared to 46.9% after RLR (p = 0.4) and 30.3% after LLR compared to 46.9% after RLR (p = 0.9). RFS at 5 years was 12.1% after OLR compared to 20.7% after LLR (p = 0.6), 33.3% after OLR compared to 26.3% after RLR (p = 0.6) and 22.7% after LLR compared to 34.6% after RLR (p = 0.6). Conclusions: When comparing OLR, LLR and RLR, the OS and RFS were all similar after utilization of the Milan criteria and PSM. Biological agents tended to be utilized more in the OLR group when compared to the LLR group, suggesting that highly aggressive tumors are still managed through an open approach.

Does Robotic Liver Surgery Enhance R0 Results in Liver Malignancies during Minimally Invasive Liver Surgery?-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Robotic procedures are an integral part of modern liver surgery. However, the advantages of a robotic approach in comparison to the conventional laparoscopic approach are the subject of controversial debate. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare robotic and laparoscopic liver resection with particular attention to the resection margin status in malignant cases. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed and Cochrane Library in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Only studies comparing robotic and laparoscopic liver resections were considered for this meta-analysis. Furthermore, the rate of the positive resection margin or R0 rate in malignant cases had to be clearly identifiable. We used fixed or random effects models according to heterogeneity. RESULTS: Fourteen studies with a total number of 1530 cases were included in qualitative and quantitative synthesis. Malignancies were identified in 71.1% (n = 1088) of these cases. These included hepatocellular carcinoma, cholangiocarcinoma, colorectal liver metastases and other malignancies of the liver. Positive resection margins were noted in 24 cases (5.3%) in the robotic group and in 54 cases (8.6%) in the laparoscopic group (OR = 0.71; 95% CI (0.42-1.18); p = 0.18). Tumor size was significantly larger in the robotic group (MD = 6.92; 95% CI (2.93-10.91); p = 0.0007). The operation time was significantly longer in the robotic procedure (MD = 28.12; 95% CI (3.66-52.57); p = 0.02). There were no significant differences between the robotic and laparoscopic approaches regarding the intra-operative blood loss, length of hospital stay, overall and severe complications and conversion rate. CONCLUSION: Our meta-analysis showed no significant difference between the robotic and laparoscopic procedures regarding the resection margin status. Tumor size was significantly larger in the robotic group. However, randomized controlled trials with long-term follow-up are needed to demonstrate the benefits of robotics in liver surgery.

The Advances in Computer Vision That Are Enabling More Autonomous Actions in Surgery: A Systematic Review of the Literature.

This is a review focused on advances and current limitations of computer vision (CV) and how CV can help us obtain to more autonomous actions in surgery. It is a follow-up article to one that we previously published in Sensors entitled, "Artificial Intelligence Surgery: How Do We Get to Autonomous Actions in Surgery?" As opposed to that article that also discussed issues of machine learning, deep learning and natural language processing, this review will delve deeper into the field of CV. Additionally, non-visual forms of data that can aid computerized robots in the performance of more autonomous actions, such as instrument priors and audio haptics, will also be highlighted. Furthermore, the current existential crisis for surgeons, endoscopists and interventional radiologists regarding more autonomy during procedures will be discussed. In summary, this paper will discuss how to harness the power of CV to keep doctors who do interventions in the loop.

The LiMAx Test as Selection Criteria in Minimally Invasive Liver Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Liver failure is a crucial predictor for relevant morbidity and mortality after hepatic surgery. Hence, a good patient selection is mandatory. We use the LiMAx test for patient selection for major or minor liver resections in robotic and laparoscopic liver surgery and share our experience here. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We identified patients in the Magdeburg registry of minimally invasive liver surgery (MD-MILS) who underwent robotic or laparoscopic minor or major liver surgery and received a LiMAx test for preoperative evaluation of the liver function. This cohort was divided in two groups: patients with normal (LiMAx normal) and decreased (LiMAx decreased) liver function measured by the LiMAx test. RESULTS: Forty patients were selected from the MD-MILS regarding the selection criteria (LiMAx normal, n = 22 and LiMAx decreased, n = 18). Significantly more major liver resections were performed in the LiMAx normal vs. the LiMAx decreased group (13 vs. 2; p = 0.003). Hence, the mean operation time was significantly longer in the LiMAx normal vs. the LiMAx decreased group (356.6 vs. 228.1 min; p = 0.003) and the intraoperative blood transfusion significantly higher in the LiMAx normal vs. the LiMAx decreased group (8 vs. 1; p = 0.027). There was no significant difference between the LiMAx groups regarding the length of hospital stay, intraoperative blood loss, liver surgery related morbidity or mortality, and resection margin status. CONCLUSION: The LiMAx test is a helpful and reliable tool to precisely determine the liver function capacity. It aids in accurate patient selection for major or minor liver resections in minimally invasive liver surgery, which consequently serves to improve patients' safety. In this way, liver resections can be performed safely, even in patients with reduced liver function, without negatively affecting morbidity, mortality and the resection margin status, which is an important predictive oncological factor.

Study: International Multicentric Minimally Invasive Liver Resection for Colorectal Liver Metastases (SIMMILR-CRLM).

(1) Background: Here we report on a retrospective study of an international multicentric cohort after minimally invasive liver resection (SIMMILR) of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) from six centers. (2) Methods: Resections were divided by the approach used: open liver resection (OLR), laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) and robotic liver resection (RLR). Patients with macrovascular invasion, more than three metastases measuring more than 3 cm or a solitary metastasis more than 5 cm were excluded, and any remaining heterogeneity found was further analyzed after propensity score matching (PSM) to decrease any potential bias. (3) Results: Prior to matching, 566 patients underwent OLR, 462 LLR and 36 RLR for CRLM. After PSM, 142 patients were in each group of the OLR vs. LLR group and 22 in the OLR vs. RLR and 21 in the LLR vs. RLR groups. Blood loss, hospital stay, and morbidity rates were all highly statistically significantly increased in the OLR compared to the LLR group, 636 mL vs. 353 mL, 9 vs. 5 days and 25% vs. 6%, respectively (p < 0.001). Only blood loss was significantly decreased when RLR was compared to OLR and LLR, 250 mL vs. 597 mL, and 224 mL vs. 778 mL, p < 0.008 and p < 0.04, respectively. (4) Conclusions: SIMMILR indicates that minimally invasive approaches for CRLM that follow the Milan criteria may have short term advantages. Notably, larger studies with long-term follow-up comparing robotic resections to both OLR and LLR are still needed.

Knowledge, attitude, and practice of artificial intelligence in emergency and trauma surgery, the ARIES project: an international web-based survey.

AIM: We aimed to evaluate the knowledge, attitude, and practices in the application of AI in the emergency setting among international acute care and emergency surgeons. METHODS: An online questionnaire composed of 30 multiple choice and open-ended questions was sent to the members of the World Society of Emergency Surgery between 29th May and 28th August 2021. The questionnaire was developed by a panel of 11 international experts and approved by the WSES steering committee. RESULTS: 200 participants answered the survey, 32 were females (16%). 172 (86%) surgeons thought that AI will improve acute care surgery. Fifty surgeons (25%) were trained, robotic surgeons and can perform it. Only 19 (9.5%) were currently performing it. 126 (63%) surgeons do not have a robotic system in their institution, and for those who have it, it was mainly used for elective surgery. Only 100 surgeons (50%) were able to define different AI terminology. Participants thought that AI is useful to support training and education (61.5%), perioperative decision making (59.5%), and surgical vision (53%) in emergency surgery. There was no statistically significant difference between males and females in ability, interest in training or expectations of AI (p values 0.91, 0.82, and 0.28, respectively, Mann-Whitney U test). Ability was significantly correlated with interest and expectations (p < 0.0001 Pearson rank correlation, rho 0.42 and 0.47, respectively) but not with experience (p = 0.9, rho - 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of artificial intelligence in the emergency and trauma setting is still in an early phase. The support of emergency and trauma surgeons is essential for the progress of AI in their setting which can be augmented by proper research and training programs in this area.

Artificial intelligence in surgery: the emergency surgeon's perspective (the ARIES project).

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has been developed and implemented in healthcare with the valuable potential to reduce health, social, and economic inequities, help actualize universal health coverage, and improve health outcomes on a global scale. The application of AI in emergency surgery settings could improve clinical practice and operating rooms management by promoting consistent, high-quality decision making while preserving the importance of bedside assessment and human intuition as well as respect for human rights and equitable surgical care, but ethical and legal issues are slowing down surgeons' enthusiasm. Emergency surgeons are aware that prioritizing education, increasing the availability of high AI technologies for emergency and trauma surgery, and funding to support research projects that use AI to provide decision support in the operating room are crucial to create an emergency "intelligent" surgery.

The use of Permacol® biological mesh for complex abdominal wall repair.

BACKGROUND: Complex abdominal wall repair (CAWR) remains challenging, especially in contaminated fields where the use of a synthetic mesh is associated with prohibitively complication rates. Consequently, biological mesh has been proposed as an alternative. The aim of our study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of using Permacol® in patients who had CAWR. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the files of patients who had CAWR using the Permacol® mesh. Analysis included patients' preoperative characteristics, procedural parameters, and early and late post-operative complications including mainly recurrence. A multivariate regression model was performed to determine factors that influence 24-months recurrence rate. RESULTS: Between January 2009 and December 2018, 75 patients. The most common indication was hernia in a contaminated field (48.0%) and abdominal wall defect greater than 10 cm in diameter (36%). Overall, 44% of our patients were Centers for Disease Control (CDC) class II or III and 81.3% fall into category II or III according to the Ventral Hernia Working Group (VHWG) classification. Recurrence rate of our series was 9.3%. Complete fascial closure was achieved in 60 patients (80%). Upon univariate analysis complete fascial closure, posterior component separation, seroma drainage, BMI>30 kg/m2 and age >65 years, VHWD grade >2, DINDO CLAVIEN class >2 affected the recurrence rate at 2 years follow-up. When subcutaneous drains are placed prophylactically, recurrence rates drop from 38.7% (5/14) to 3.3% (2/61 patients) when drains are placed at the time of operation (P=0.02). Only fascial closure affected the 24-months recurrence rate on multivariate analysis (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Permacol® surgical implant use for CAWR is safe with a relatively low rate of hernia recurrence at 2 years. Prophylactic subcutaneous drain placement may reduce the risk of hernia recurrence. The presence of contaminated fields does not appear to influence hernia recurrence when Permacol® is used, in fact, the only factor that affects recurrence rate at 24-months on multivariate analysis is completeness of the fascial closure.

Three-Device (3D) Technique for Liver Parenchyma Dissection in Robotic Liver Surgery.

BACKGROUND: The implementation of robotics in liver surgery offers several advantages compared to conventional open and laparoscopic techniques. One major advantage is the enhanced degree of freedom at the tip of the robotic tools compared to laparoscopic instruments. This enables excellent vessel control during inflow and outflow dissection of the liver. Parenchymal transection remains the most challenging part during robotic liver resection because currently available robotic instruments for parenchymal transection have several limitations and there is no standardized technique as of yet. We established a new strategy and share our experience. METHODS: We present a novel technique for the transection of liver parenchyma during robotic surgery, using three devices (3D) simultaneously: monopolar scissors and bipolar Maryland forceps of the robot and laparoscopic-guided waterjet. We collected the perioperative data of twenty-eight patients who underwent this procedure for minor and major liver resections between February 2019 and December 2020 from the Magdeburg Registry of minimally invasive liver surgery (MD-MILS). RESULTS: Twenty-eight patients underwent robotic-assisted 3D parenchyma dissection within the investigation period. Twelve cases of major and sixteen cases of minor hepatectomy for malignant and non-malignant cases were performed. Operative time for major liver resections (≥ 3 liver segments) was 381.7 (SD 80.6) min vs. 252.0 (70.4) min for minor resections (p < 0.01). Intraoperative measured blood loss was 495.8 (SD 508.8) ml for major and 256.3 (170.2) ml for minor liver resections (p = 0.090). The mean postoperative stay was 13.3 (SD 11.1) days for all cases. Liver surgery-related morbidity was 10.7%, no mortalities occurred. We achieved an R0 resection in all malignant cases. CONCLUSIONS: The 3D technique for parenchyma dissection in robotic liver surgery is a safe and feasible procedure. This novel method offers an advanced locally controlled preparation of intrahepatic vessels and bile ducts. The combination of precise extrahepatic vessel handling with the 3D technique of parenchyma dissection is a fundamental step forward to the standardization of robotic liver surgery for teaching purposing and the wider adoption of robotic hepatectomy into routine patient care.

Women in Surgery Italia: National Survey Assessing Gender-Related Challenges.

BACKGROUND: In 2019, women accounted for 46% of surgical residents. Despite the international debate on gender disparities, no literature regarding the experience in Italy is available. The aim of this survey study was to assess satisfaction among female surgeons in Italy, and determine whether they encounter gender-based discrimination. STUDY DESIGN: An anonymous, 83-item web-based survey was distributed among female surgeons working in Italy, from November 18 to December 31, 2020. Gender equity, satisfaction, and factors associated with higher satisfaction and work-life balance were explored. RESULTS: There were 3,242 volunteer respondents, 1,833 of whom completed at least 50% of the specific questions and were included in the study. Approximately 54% of female Italian surgeons reported being satisfied with their job, but only 34% with their work-life balance. Among residents, 67% thought they were not adequately trained. The majority of respondents were responsible for most of the housekeeping (60%) and childcare duties (53%), regardless of their partner's workload, and 62% reported that gender affects the way they are treated at work, with most of them experiencing microaggressions. Sexual harassment was common (59%), but only 10% of women reported it. CONCLUSIONS: Most Italian female surgeons are satisfied with their professional choice. However, they face gender discrimination, including incidents of sexual harassment and microaggression. Due to the fact that half of surgeons working in Italian hospitals will be females in the next few years, actions are urgently required to build a culture that supports a gender-neutral environment.

Artificial Intelligence Surgery: How Do We Get to Autonomous Actions in Surgery?

Most surgeons are skeptical as to the feasibility of autonomous actions in surgery. Interestingly, many examples of autonomous actions already exist and have been around for years. Since the beginning of this millennium, the field of artificial intelligence (AI) has grown exponentially with the development of machine learning (ML), deep learning (DL), computer vision (CV) and natural language processing (NLP). All of these facets of AI will be fundamental to the development of more autonomous actions in surgery, unfortunately, only a limited number of surgeons have or seek expertise in this rapidly evolving field. As opposed to AI in medicine, AI surgery (AIS) involves autonomous movements. Fortuitously, as the field of robotics in surgery has improved, more surgeons are becoming interested in technology and the potential of autonomous actions in procedures such as interventional radiology, endoscopy and surgery. The lack of haptics, or the sensation of touch, has hindered the wider adoption of robotics by many surgeons; however, now that the true potential of robotics can be comprehended, the embracing of AI by the surgical community is more important than ever before. Although current complete surgical systems are mainly only examples of tele-manipulation, for surgeons to get to more autonomously functioning robots, haptics is perhaps not the most important aspect. If the goal is for robots to ultimately become more and more independent, perhaps research should not focus on the concept of haptics as it is perceived by humans, and the focus should be on haptics as it is perceived by robots/computers. This article will discuss aspects of ML, DL, CV and NLP as they pertain to the modern practice of surgery, with a focus on current AI issues and advances that will enable us to get to more autonomous actions in surgery. Ultimately, there may be a paradigm shift that needs to occur in the surgical community as more surgeons with expertise in AI may be needed to fully unlock the potential of AIS in a safe, efficacious and timely manner.

The initiation, standardization and proficiency (ISP) phases of the learning curve for minimally invasive liver resection: comparison of a fellowship-trained surgeon with the pioneers and early adopters.

BACKGROUND: Using the Ideal Development Exploration Assessment and Long-term study (IDEAL) paradigm, Halls et al. created risk-adjusted cumulative sum (RA-CUSUM) curves concluding that Pioneers (P) and Early Adopters (EA) of minimally invasive (MI) liver resection obtained similar results after fewer cases. In this study, we applied this framework to a MI Hepatic-Pancreatic and Biliary fellowship-trained surgeon (FT) in order to assess where along the curves this generation fell. METHODS: The term FT was used to designate surgeons without previous independent operative experience who went from surgical residency directly into fellowship. Three phases of the learning curve were defined using published data on EAs and Ps of MI Hepatectomy, including phase 1 (initiation) (i.e., the first 17 or 50), phase 2 (standardization) (i.e., cases 18-46 or 1-50) and phase 3 (proficiency) (i.e., cases after 46, 50 or 135). Data analysis was performed using the Social Science Statistics software ( www.socscistatistics.com ). Statistical significance was defined as p < .05. RESULTS: From November 2007 until April 2018, 95 MI hepatectomies were performed by a FT. During phase 1, the FT approached larger tumors than the EA group (p = 0.002), that were more often malignant (94.1%) when compared to the P group (52.5%) (p < 0.001). During phase 2, the FT operated on larger tumors and more malignancies (93.1%) when compared to the Ps (p = 0.004 and p = 0.017, respectively). However, there was no difference when compared to the EA. In the phase 3, the EAs tended to perform more major hepatectomies (58.7) when compared to either the FT (30.6%) (p = 0.002) or the P's cases 51-135 and after 135 (35.3% and 44.3%, respectively) (both p values < 0.001). When compared to the Ps cases from 51-135, the FT operated on more malignancies (p = 0.012), but this was no longer the case after 135 cases by the Ps (p = 0.164). There were no statistically significant differences when conversions; major complications or 30- and 90-day mortality were compared among these 3 groups. DISCUSSION: Using the IDEAL framework and RA-CUSUM curves, a FT surgeon was found to have curves similar to EAs despite having no previous independent experience operating on the liver. As in our study, FTs may tend to approach larger and more malignant tumors and do more concomitant procedures in patients with higher ASA classifications than either of their predecessors, without statistically significant increases in major morbidity or mortality. CONCLUSION: It is possible that the ISP (i.e., initiation, standardization, proficiency) model could apply to other innovative surgical procedures, creating different learning curves depending on where along the IDEAL paradigm surgeons fall.