Development of a multimedia tutorial to educate how to assess the critical view of safety in laparoscopic cholecystectomy using expert review and crowd-sourcing

We sought to determine the feasibility of developing a multimedia educational tutorial to teach learners to assess the critical view of safety using input from expert surgeons, non-surgeons and crowd-sourcing. We intended to develop a tutorial that would teach learners how to identify the basic anatomy and physiology of the gallbladder, identify the components of the critical view of safety criteria, and understand its significance for performing a safe gallbladder removal. Using rounds of assessment with experts, laypersons and crowd-workers we developed an educational video with improving comprehension after each round of revision. We demonstrate that the development of a multimedia educational tool to educate learners of various backgrounds is feasible using an iterative review process that incorporates the input of experts and crowd sourcing. When planning the development of an educational tutorial, a step-wise approach as described herein should be considered

What to expect when you're expecting a hepatopancreatobiliary surgeon: self‐reported experiences of HPB surgeons from different training pathways

BackgroundHepatopancreatobiliary (HPB) surgery fellowship training has multiple paths. Prospective trainees and employers must understand the differences between training pathways. This study examines self‐reported fellowship experiences and current scope of practice across three pathways.MethodsAn online survey was disseminated to 654 surgeons. These included active Americas Hepato‐Pancreato‐Biliary Association (AHPBA) members and recent graduates of HPB, transplant–HPB and HPB–heavy surgical oncology fellowships.ResultsA total of 416 (64%) surgeons responded. Most respondents were male (89%) and most were practising in an academic setting (83%). 290 (70%) respondents underwent formal fellowship training. Although fellowship experiences varied, current practice was largely similar. Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and ultrasound were the most commonly identified areas of training deficiencies and were, respectively, cited as such by 47% and 34% of HPB‐, 49% and 50% of transplant‐, and 52% and 25% of surgical oncology‐trained respondents. Non‐HPB cases performed in current practice included gastrointestinal (GI) and general surgery cases (56% and 49%, respectively) for HPB‐trained respondents, transplant and general surgery cases (87% and 21%, respectively) for transplant‐trained respondents, and GI surgery and non‐HPB surgical oncology cases (70% and 28%, respectively) for surgical oncology‐trained respondents.ConclusionsFellowship training in HPB surgery varies by training pathway. Training in MIS and ultrasound is deficient in each pathway. The ultimate scope of non‐transplant HPB practice appears similar across training pathways. Thus, training pathway choice is best guided by the training experience desired and non‐HPB components of anticipated practice.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/113167/1/hpb12430.pd

Training Paradigms in Hepato-Pancreatico-Biliary Surgery: an Overview of the Different Fellowship Pathways

Hepato-pancreatico-biliary (HPB) surgery, and the training of HPB surgeons, has evolved significantly over the last several decades. The current state of training in HPB surgery in North America is defined through three main pathways: the Complex General Surgical Oncology (CGSO) ACGME fellowship, the American Society of Transplant Surgeons (ASTS) fellowship, and the Americas Hepatopancreaticobiliary Association (AHPBA) fellowship. These fellowships offer variable experiences in pancreas, liver, and biliary cases, and each pathway offers a unique perspective on HPB surgery. The CGSO ACGME, ASTS, and AHPBA fellowships represent decades of work by the three major surgical leadership stakeholders to improve and ensure quality training of future HPB surgeons. The best care is provided by the HPB surgeon who has been trained to understand the importance of all available treatment options within the context of a multidisciplinary setting. The three fellowship pathways are outlined in this paper with the nuances and variations characteristic of the different training programs highlighted

Key components of a hepatobiliary surgery curriculum for general surgery residents : results of the FULCRUM International Delphi consensus

Background: In general surgery residency, hepatobiliary training varies significantly across the world. The aim of this study was to establish an international consensus among hepatobiliary surgeons on components of a hepatobiliary curriculum for general surgery residents. Methods: A three-round modified Delphi technique was employed. Fifty-two hepatobiliary surgeons involved in general surgery training programs were invited. An initial questionnaire was developed by a group of experts in hepatobiliary and educational research after a systematic literature review. It comprised 90 statements about knowledge, technical skills, attitudes, and postoperative care. Panelists could add or alter items. The survey was delivered electronically and the panel was instructed to score the items based on 5-point Likert scale. Consensus was reached when at least 80% of panelists agreed on a statement with Cronbach's alpha value >0.8. Results: Forty-one (79%) experts have participated. Sixteen panelists are based in Asia, 14 in Europe, and 11 in the Americas. Eighty percent of all proposed skills (81/101) were considered fundamental including knowledge (39/43), technical skills (16/32), attitude (15/15), and postoperative care (11/11). Conclusion: An international consensus was achieved on components of a hepatobiliary curriculum. Acquiring broad knowledge is fundamental during residency. Advanced liver resection techniques require specialized hepatobiliary training

Surgical and Oncological Outcomes After Preoperative FOLFIRINOX Chemotherapy in Resected Pancreatic Cancer : An International Multicenter Cohort Study

Background. Preoperative FOLFIRINOX chemotherapy is increasingly administered to patients with borderline resectable (BRPC) and locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) to improve overall survival (OS). Multicenter studies reporting on the impact from the number of preoperative cycles and the use of adjuvant chemotherapy in relation to outcomes in this setting are lacking. This study aimed to assess the outcome of pancreatectomy after preoperative FOLFIRINOX, including predictors of OS.Methods. This international multicenter retrospective cohort study included patients from 31 centers in 19 European countries and the United States undergoing pancreatectomy after preoperative FOLFIRINOX chemotherapy (2012-2016). The primary end point was OS from diagnosis. Survival was assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox regression.Results. The study included 423 patients who underwent pancreatectomy after a median of six (IQR 5-8) preoperative cycles of FOLFIRINOX. Postoperative major morbidity occurred for 88 (20.8%) patients and 90-day mortality for 12 (2.8%) patients. An R0 resection was achieved for 243 (57.4%) patients, and 259 (61.2%) patients received adjuvant chemotherapy. The median OS was 38 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 34-42 months) for BRPC and 33 months (95% CI 27-45 months) for LAPC. Overall survival was significantly associated with R0 resection (hazard ratio [HR] 1.63; 95% CI 1.20-2.20) and tumor differentiation (HR 1.43; 95% CI 1.08-1.91). Neither the number of preoperative chemotherapy cycles nor the use adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with OS.Conclusions. This international multicenter study found that pancreatectomy after FOLFIRINOX chemotherapy is associated with favorable outcomes for patients with BRPC and those with LAPC. Future studies should confirm that the number of neoadjuvant cycles and the use adjuvant chemotherapy have no relation to OS after resection.Peer reviewe

Minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy for resectable pancreatic cancer (DIPLOMA):an international randomised non-inferiority trial

Background: The oncological safety of minimally invasive surgery has been questioned for several abdominal cancers. Concerns also exist regarding the use of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer as randomised trials are lacking. Methods: In this international randomised non-inferiority trial, we recruited adults with resectable pancreatic cancer from 35 centres in 12 countries. Patients were randomly assigned to either MIDP (laparoscopic or robotic) or open distal pancreatectomy (ODP). Both patients and pathologists were blinded to the assigned approach. Primary endpoint was radical resection (R0, ≥1 mm free margin) in patients who had ultimately undergone resection. Analyses for the primary endpoint were by modified intention-to-treat, excluding patients with missing data on primary endpoint. The pre-defined non-inferiority margin of −7% was compared with the lower limit of the two-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) of absolute difference in the primary endpoint. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN44897265). Findings: Between May 8, 2018 and May 7, 2021, 258 patients were randomly assigned to MIDP (131 patients) or ODP (127 patients). Modified intention-to-treat analysis included 114 patients in the MIDP group and 110 patients in the ODP group. An R0 resection occurred in 83 (73%) patients in the MIDP group and in 76 (69%) patients in the ODP group (difference 3.7%, 90% CI −6.2 to 13.6%; pnon-inferiority = 0.039). Median lymph node yield was comparable (22.0 [16.0–30.0] vs 23.0 [14.0–32.0] nodes, p = 0.86), as was the rate of intraperitoneal recurrence (41% vs 38%, p = 0.45). Median follow-up was 23.5 (interquartile range 17.0–30.0) months. Other postoperative outcomes were comparable, including median time to functional recovery (5 [95% CI 4.5–5.5] vs 5 [95% CI 4.7–5.3] days; p = 0.22) and overall survival (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.67–1.46, p = 0.94). Serious adverse events were reported in 23 (18%) of 131 patients in the MIDP group vs 28 (22%) of 127 patients in the ODP group. Interpretation: This trial provides evidence on the non-inferiority of MIDP compared to ODP regarding radical resection rates in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer. The present findings support the applicability of minimally invasive surgery in patients with resectable left-sided pancreatic cancer. Funding: Medtronic Covidien AG, Johnson &amp; Johnson Medical Limited, Dutch Gastroenterology Society.</p

Minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy for resectable pancreatic cancer (DIPLOMA):an international randomised non-inferiority trial

Background: The oncological safety of minimally invasive surgery has been questioned for several abdominal cancers. Concerns also exist regarding the use of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer as randomised trials are lacking. Methods: In this international randomised non-inferiority trial, we recruited adults with resectable pancreatic cancer from 35 centres in 12 countries. Patients were randomly assigned to either MIDP (laparoscopic or robotic) or open distal pancreatectomy (ODP). Both patients and pathologists were blinded to the assigned approach. Primary endpoint was radical resection (R0, ≥1 mm free margin) in patients who had ultimately undergone resection. Analyses for the primary endpoint were by modified intention-to-treat, excluding patients with missing data on primary endpoint. The pre-defined non-inferiority margin of −7% was compared with the lower limit of the two-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) of absolute difference in the primary endpoint. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN44897265). Findings: Between May 8, 2018 and May 7, 2021, 258 patients were randomly assigned to MIDP (131 patients) or ODP (127 patients). Modified intention-to-treat analysis included 114 patients in the MIDP group and 110 patients in the ODP group. An R0 resection occurred in 83 (73%) patients in the MIDP group and in 76 (69%) patients in the ODP group (difference 3.7%, 90% CI −6.2 to 13.6%; pnon-inferiority = 0.039). Median lymph node yield was comparable (22.0 [16.0–30.0] vs 23.0 [14.0–32.0] nodes, p = 0.86), as was the rate of intraperitoneal recurrence (41% vs 38%, p = 0.45). Median follow-up was 23.5 (interquartile range 17.0–30.0) months. Other postoperative outcomes were comparable, including median time to functional recovery (5 [95% CI 4.5–5.5] vs 5 [95% CI 4.7–5.3] days; p = 0.22) and overall survival (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.67–1.46, p = 0.94). Serious adverse events were reported in 23 (18%) of 131 patients in the MIDP group vs 28 (22%) of 127 patients in the ODP group. Interpretation: This trial provides evidence on the non-inferiority of MIDP compared to ODP regarding radical resection rates in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer. The present findings support the applicability of minimally invasive surgery in patients with resectable left-sided pancreatic cancer. Funding: Medtronic Covidien AG, Johnson &amp; Johnson Medical Limited, Dutch Gastroenterology Society.</p

Minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy for resectable pancreatic cancer (DIPLOMA):an international randomised non-inferiority trial

Background: The oncological safety of minimally invasive surgery has been questioned for several abdominal cancers. Concerns also exist regarding the use of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer as randomised trials are lacking. Methods: In this international randomised non-inferiority trial, we recruited adults with resectable pancreatic cancer from 35 centres in 12 countries. Patients were randomly assigned to either MIDP (laparoscopic or robotic) or open distal pancreatectomy (ODP). Both patients and pathologists were blinded to the assigned approach. Primary endpoint was radical resection (R0, ≥1 mm free margin) in patients who had ultimately undergone resection. Analyses for the primary endpoint were by modified intention-to-treat, excluding patients with missing data on primary endpoint. The pre-defined non-inferiority margin of −7% was compared with the lower limit of the two-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) of absolute difference in the primary endpoint. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN44897265). Findings: Between May 8, 2018 and May 7, 2021, 258 patients were randomly assigned to MIDP (131 patients) or ODP (127 patients). Modified intention-to-treat analysis included 114 patients in the MIDP group and 110 patients in the ODP group. An R0 resection occurred in 83 (73%) patients in the MIDP group and in 76 (69%) patients in the ODP group (difference 3.7%, 90% CI −6.2 to 13.6%; pnon-inferiority = 0.039). Median lymph node yield was comparable (22.0 [16.0–30.0] vs 23.0 [14.0–32.0] nodes, p = 0.86), as was the rate of intraperitoneal recurrence (41% vs 38%, p = 0.45). Median follow-up was 23.5 (interquartile range 17.0–30.0) months. Other postoperative outcomes were comparable, including median time to functional recovery (5 [95% CI 4.5–5.5] vs 5 [95% CI 4.7–5.3] days; p = 0.22) and overall survival (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.67–1.46, p = 0.94). Serious adverse events were reported in 23 (18%) of 131 patients in the MIDP group vs 28 (22%) of 127 patients in the ODP group. Interpretation: This trial provides evidence on the non-inferiority of MIDP compared to ODP regarding radical resection rates in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer. The present findings support the applicability of minimally invasive surgery in patients with resectable left-sided pancreatic cancer. Funding: Medtronic Covidien AG, Johnson &amp; Johnson Medical Limited, Dutch Gastroenterology Society.</p

Minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy for resectable pancreatic cancer (DIPLOMA):an international randomised non-inferiority trial

Background: The oncological safety of minimally invasive surgery has been questioned for several abdominal cancers. Concerns also exist regarding the use of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer as randomised trials are lacking. Methods: In this international randomised non-inferiority trial, we recruited adults with resectable pancreatic cancer from 35 centres in 12 countries. Patients were randomly assigned to either MIDP (laparoscopic or robotic) or open distal pancreatectomy (ODP). Both patients and pathologists were blinded to the assigned approach. Primary endpoint was radical resection (R0, ≥1 mm free margin) in patients who had ultimately undergone resection. Analyses for the primary endpoint were by modified intention-to-treat, excluding patients with missing data on primary endpoint. The pre-defined non-inferiority margin of −7% was compared with the lower limit of the two-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) of absolute difference in the primary endpoint. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN44897265). Findings: Between May 8, 2018 and May 7, 2021, 258 patients were randomly assigned to MIDP (131 patients) or ODP (127 patients). Modified intention-to-treat analysis included 114 patients in the MIDP group and 110 patients in the ODP group. An R0 resection occurred in 83 (73%) patients in the MIDP group and in 76 (69%) patients in the ODP group (difference 3.7%, 90% CI −6.2 to 13.6%; pnon-inferiority = 0.039). Median lymph node yield was comparable (22.0 [16.0–30.0] vs 23.0 [14.0–32.0] nodes, p = 0.86), as was the rate of intraperitoneal recurrence (41% vs 38%, p = 0.45). Median follow-up was 23.5 (interquartile range 17.0–30.0) months. Other postoperative outcomes were comparable, including median time to functional recovery (5 [95% CI 4.5–5.5] vs 5 [95% CI 4.7–5.3] days; p = 0.22) and overall survival (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.67–1.46, p = 0.94). Serious adverse events were reported in 23 (18%) of 131 patients in the MIDP group vs 28 (22%) of 127 patients in the ODP group. Interpretation: This trial provides evidence on the non-inferiority of MIDP compared to ODP regarding radical resection rates in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer. The present findings support the applicability of minimally invasive surgery in patients with resectable left-sided pancreatic cancer. Funding: Medtronic Covidien AG, Johnson &amp; Johnson Medical Limited, Dutch Gastroenterology Society.</p

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.</p