Learning Curves of Minimally Invasive Distal Pancreatectomy in Experienced Pancreatic Centers

IMPORTANCE Understanding the learning curve of a new complex surgical technique helps to reduce potential patient harm. Current series on the learning curve of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) are mostly small, single-center series, thus providing limited data.OBJECTIVE To evaluate the length of pooled learning curves of MIDP in experienced centers.DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This international, multicenter, retrospective cohort study included MIDP procedures performed from January 1, 2006, through June 30, 2019, in 26 European centers from 8 countries that each performed more than 15 distal pancreatectomies annually, with an overall experience exceeding 50 MIDP procedures. Consecutive patients who underwent elective laparoscopic or robotic distal pancreatectomy for all indications were included. Data were analyzed between September 1, 2021, and May 1, 2022.EXPOSURES The learning curve for MIDP was estimated by pooling data from all centers.MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The learning curvewas assessed for the primary textbook outcome (TBO), which is a composite measure that reflects optimal outcome, and for surgical mastery. Generalized additive models and a 2-piece linear model with a break point were used to estimate the learning curve length of MIDP. Case mix-expected probabilities were plotted and compared with observed outcomes to assess the association of changing case mix with outcomes. The learning curve also was assessed for the secondary outcomes of operation time, intraoperative blood loss, conversion to open rate, and postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C.RESULTS From a total of 2610 MIDP procedures, the learning curve analysis was conducted on 2041 procedures (mean [SD] patient age, 58 [15.3] years; among 2040 with reported sex, 1249 were female [61.2%] and 791 male [38.8%]). The 2-piece model showed an increase and eventually a break point for TBO at 85 procedures (95% CI, 13-157 procedures), with a plateau TBO rate at 70%. The learning-associated loss of TBO rate was estimated at 3.3%. For conversion, a break point was estimated at 40 procedures (95% CI, 11-68 procedures); for operation time, at 56 procedures (95% CI, 35-77 procedures); and for intraoperative blood loss, at 71 procedures (95% CI, 28-114 procedures). For postoperative pancreatic fistula, no break point could be estimated.CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE In experienced international centers, the learning curve length of MIDP for TBO was considerable with 85 procedures. These findings suggest that although learning curves for conversion, operation time, and intraoperative blood loss are completed earlier, extensive experience may be needed to master the learning curve of MIDP

The impact of laparoscopic versus open colorectal cancer surgery on subsequent laparoscopic resection of liver metastases: a multicenter study

Background: Laparoscopic liver surgery is expanding. Most laparoscopic liver resections for colorectal carcinoma metastases are performed subsequent to the resection of the colorectal primary, raising concerns about the feasibility and safety of advanced laparoscopic liver surgery in the context of an abdomen with possible postoperative adhesions. The aim was to compare the outcome of laparoscopic hepatectomy for colorectal metastases after open versus laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Methods: This observational, multicenter study reviewed 394 patients undergoing laparoscopic minor and major liver resection for colorectal carcinoma metastases. Main outcome measures were intraoperative unfavorable incidents and short-term results in patients who had previous open versus laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery. Results: Three hundred six patients (78%) had prior open and 88 (22%) had prior laparoscopic colorectal resection. Laparoscopic major hepatectomies were undertaken in 63 (16%). Intraoperative unfavorable incidents during laparoscopic liver surgery were significantly higher among patients who had prior open colorectal surgery (26%) compared with the laparoscopic group (14%; P = .017). Positive resection margins and postoperative complications were not associated with the approach adopted for the resection of the primary cancer. On multivariate logistic regression analysis, intraoperative unfavorable incidents were associated significantly only with prior open colorectal surgery (odds ratio, 2.8; P = .006) and laparoscopic major hepatectomy (odds ratio, 2.4; P = .009). Conclusion: Laparoscopic minor hepatectomy can be performed safely in patients who have undergone previous open colorectal surgery. Laparoscopic major hepatectomy after open colorectal surgery may be challenging. Careful risk assessment in the decision-making process is required not to compromise patient safety and to guarantee the expected benefits from the minimally invasive approach

Defining Global Benchmarks for Laparoscopic Liver Resections: An International Multicenter Study

Objective:To establish global benchmark outcomes indicators after laparoscopic liver resections (L-LR). Background:There is limited published data to date on the best achievable outcomes after L-LR. Methods:This is a post hoc analysis of a multicenter database of 11,983 patients undergoing L-LR in 45 international centers in 4 continents between 2015 and 2020. Three specific procedures: left lateral sectionectomy (LLS), left hepatectomy (LH), and right hepatectomy (RH) were selected to represent the 3 difficulty levels of L-LR. Fifteen outcome indicators were selected to establish benchmark cutoffs. Results:There were 3519 L-LR (LLS, LH, RH) of which 1258 L-LR (40.6%) cases performed in 34 benchmark expert centers qualified as low-risk benchmark cases. These included 659 LLS (52.4%), 306 LH (24.3%), and 293 RH (23.3%). The benchmark outcomes established for operation time, open conversion rate, blood loss >= 500 mL, blood transfusion rate, postoperative morbidity, major morbidity, and 90-day mortality after LLS, LH, and RH were 209.5, 302, and 426 minutes; 2.1%, 13.4%, and 13.0%; 3.2%, 20%, and 47.1%; 0%, 7.1%, and 10.5%; 11.1%, 20%, and 50%; 0%, 7.1%, and 20%; and 0%, 0%, and 0%, respectively. Conclusions:This study established the first global benchmark outcomes for L-LR in a large-scale international patient cohort. It provides an up-to-date reference regarding the "best achievable" results for L-LR for which centers adopting L-LR can use as a comparison to enable an objective assessment of performance gaps and learning curves