Implementation and outcome of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy in Europe: a registry-based retrospective study - a critical appraisal of the first 3 years of the E-MIPS registry.

BACKGROUND: International multicenter audit-based studies focusing on the outcome of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) are lacking. The European Registry for Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Surgery (E-MIPS) is the E-AHPBA endorsed registry aimed to monitor and safeguard the introduction of MIPD in Europe. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A planned analysis of outcomes among consecutive patients after MIPD from 45 centers in 14 European countries in the E-MIPS registry (2019-2021). The main outcomes of interest were major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥3) and 30-day/in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: Overall, 1336 patients after MIPD were included [835 robot-assisted (R-MIPD) and 501 laparoscopic MIPD (L-MIPD)]. Overall, 20 centers performed R-MIPD, 15 centers L-MIPD, and 10 centers both. Between 2019 and 2021, the rate of centers performing L-MIPD decreased from 46.9 to 25%, whereas for R-MIPD this increased from 46.9 to 65.6%. Overall, the rate of major morbidity was 41.2%, 30-day/in-hospital mortality 4.5%, conversion rate 9.7%, postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C 22.7%, and postpancreatectomy hemorrhage grade B/C 10.8%. Median length of hospital stay was 12 days (IQR 8-21). A lower rate of major morbidity, postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage grade B/C, delayed gastric emptying grade B/C, percutaneous drainage, and readmission was found after L-MIPD. The number of centers meeting the Miami Guidelines volume cut-off of ≥20 MIPDs annually increased from 9 (28.1%) in 2019 to 12 (37.5%) in 2021 ( P =0.424). Rates of conversion (7.4 vs. 14.8% P <0.001) and reoperation (8.9 vs. 15.1% P <0.001) were lower in centers, which fulfilled the Miami volume cut-off. CONCLUSION: During the first 3 years of the pan-European E-MIPS registry, morbidity and mortality rates after MIPD were acceptable. A shift is ongoing from L-MIPD to R-MIPD. Variations in outcomes between the two minimally invasive approaches and the impact of the volume cut-off should be further evaluated over a longer time period.

[PROM a contemporary approach to assessing the quality of life of patients with cancer].

PRO (patient reported outcomes) is a patient's subjective assessment of health and quality of life, without interpretation by a specialist. PROM (patient reported outcomes measure) questionnaires are used to analyzing this data. Assessment of the quality of life is a perspective direction, which allows to improve the quality of medical care and treatment results. Today, there are many questionnaires PROM, their reliability and validity has been proven in numerous studies. Unified standards and methods for developing and evaluating questionnaires have been developed. Interest in the use of quality of life questionnaires is increasing constantly. However, studies analyzing the data of the PROM questionnaires are rarely found in the national literature. Quality of life is also poorly researched in clinical practice. The aim of the literature review is to present modern methods for assessing the quality of life of patients, especially with cancer. A review of the most widespread and reliable questionnaires and assessment instruments for the quality of life of a patient has been carried out. The analysis of world experience of their use in clinical practice, for patients with cancer has been performed. Examples of both general and specific questionnaires are given. PROM questionnaires are widely used among patients with cancer. However, incorrect use of PROMs is found in the literature, and in patients with certain nosologies PROM data studied poorly. Further analysis of the potential of PROM questionnaires implementation is required, as well as their translation and adaptation for use in Russian health care.