Outcomes of a Multicenter Training Program in Robotic Pancreatoduodenectomy (LAELAPS-3).
Journal
Annals of surgery
ISSN: 1528-1140
Titre abrégé: Ann Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0372354
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 12 2022
01 12 2022
Historique:
pubmed:
4
2
2021
medline:
11
11
2022
entrez:
3
2
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To assess feasibility and safety of a multicenter training program in robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) adhering to the IDEAL framework for implementation of surgical innovation. Good results for RPD have been reported from single center studies. However, data on feasibility and safety of implementation through a multicenter training program in RPD are lacking. A multicenter training program in RPD was designed together with the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, including an online video bank, robot simulation exercises, biotissue drills, and on-site proctoring. Benchmark patients were based on the criteria of Clavien. Outcomes were collected prospectively (March 2016-October 2019). Cumulative sum analysis of operative time was performed to distinguish the first and second phase of the learning curve. Outcomes were compared between both phases of the learning curve. Trends in nationwide use of robotic and laparoscopic PD were assessed in the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit. Overall, 275 RPD procedures were performed in seven centers by 15 trained surgeons. The recent benchmark criteria for low-risk PD were met by 125 (45.5%) patients. The conversion rate was 6.5% (n = 18) and median blood loss 250ml [interquartile range (IQR) 150-500]. The rate of Clavien-Dindo grade ≥III complications was 44.4% (n = 122), postoperative pancreatic fistula (grade B/C) rate 23.6% (n = 65), 90-day complication-related mortality 2.5% (n = 7) and 90-day cancer-related mortality 2.2.% (n = 6). Median postoperative hospital stay was 12 days (IQR 8-20). In the subgroup of patients with pancreatic cancer (n = 80), the major complication rate was 31.3% and POPF rate was 10%. Cumulative sum analysis for operative time found a learning curve inflection point at 22 RPDs (IQR 10-35) with similar rates of Clavien-Dindo grade ≥III complications in the first and second phase (43.4% vs 43.8%, P = 0.956, respectively). During the study period the nationwide use of laparoscopic PD reduced from 15% to 1%, whereas the use of RPD increased from 0% to 25%. This multicenter RPD training program in centers with sufficient surgical volume was found to be feasible without a negative impact of the learning curve on clinical outcomes.
Sections du résumé
OBJECTIVE
To assess feasibility and safety of a multicenter training program in robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) adhering to the IDEAL framework for implementation of surgical innovation.
BACKGROUND
Good results for RPD have been reported from single center studies. However, data on feasibility and safety of implementation through a multicenter training program in RPD are lacking.
METHODS
A multicenter training program in RPD was designed together with the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, including an online video bank, robot simulation exercises, biotissue drills, and on-site proctoring. Benchmark patients were based on the criteria of Clavien. Outcomes were collected prospectively (March 2016-October 2019). Cumulative sum analysis of operative time was performed to distinguish the first and second phase of the learning curve. Outcomes were compared between both phases of the learning curve. Trends in nationwide use of robotic and laparoscopic PD were assessed in the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit.
RESULTS
Overall, 275 RPD procedures were performed in seven centers by 15 trained surgeons. The recent benchmark criteria for low-risk PD were met by 125 (45.5%) patients. The conversion rate was 6.5% (n = 18) and median blood loss 250ml [interquartile range (IQR) 150-500]. The rate of Clavien-Dindo grade ≥III complications was 44.4% (n = 122), postoperative pancreatic fistula (grade B/C) rate 23.6% (n = 65), 90-day complication-related mortality 2.5% (n = 7) and 90-day cancer-related mortality 2.2.% (n = 6). Median postoperative hospital stay was 12 days (IQR 8-20). In the subgroup of patients with pancreatic cancer (n = 80), the major complication rate was 31.3% and POPF rate was 10%. Cumulative sum analysis for operative time found a learning curve inflection point at 22 RPDs (IQR 10-35) with similar rates of Clavien-Dindo grade ≥III complications in the first and second phase (43.4% vs 43.8%, P = 0.956, respectively). During the study period the nationwide use of laparoscopic PD reduced from 15% to 1%, whereas the use of RPD increased from 0% to 25%.
CONCLUSIONS
This multicenter RPD training program in centers with sufficient surgical volume was found to be feasible without a negative impact of the learning curve on clinical outcomes.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33534227
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000004783
pii: 00000658-202212000-00053
doi:
Types de publication
Multicenter Study
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e886-e895Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors report no conflicts of interest.
Références
Gagner M, Pomp A. Laparoscopic pylorus-preserving pancreatoduodenec-tomy. Surg Endosc. 1994;8:408–410.
Giulianotti PC, Sbrana F, Bianco FM, et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreatic surgery: Single-surgeon experience. Surg Endosc. 2010;24: 1646–1657.
van Hilst J, De Rooij T, Bosscha K, et al. Laparoscopic versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic or periampullary tumours (LEOP-ARD-2): a multicentre, patient-blinded, randomised controlled phase 2/3 trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019;4:199–207.
Poves I, Burdío F, Morató O, et al. Comparison of perioperative outcomes between laparoscopic and open approach for pancreatoduodenectomy: the PADULAP randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg. 2018;268:731–739.
Palanivelu C, Senthilnathan P, Sabnis SC, et al. Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for periampullary tumours. Br J Surg. 2017;104:1443–1450.
Shyr BU, Chen SC, Shyr YM, et al. Learning curves for robotic pancreatic surgery-from distal pancreatectomy to pancreaticoduodenectomy. Medicine. 2018;97:1–8.
Chen S, Chen JZ, Zhan Q, et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy: a prospective, matched, mid-term follow-up study. Surg Endosc. 2015;29:3698–3711.
Zureikat AH, Beane JD, Zenati MS, et al. 500 minimally invasive robotic pancreatoduodenectomies: one decade of optimizing performance. Ann Surg. 2021;273:966–972.
Napoli N, Kauffmann EF, Palmeri M, et al. The learning curve in robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy. Dig Surg. 2016;33:299–307.
Takahashi C, Shridhar R, Huston J, et al. Outcomes associated with robotic approach to pancreatic resections. J Gastrointest Oncol. 2018;9:936–941.
Shi Y, Wang W, Qiu W, et al. Learning curve from 450 cases of robot-assisted pancreaticoduocectomy in a high-volume pancreatic center: optimization of operative procedure and a retrospective study. Ann Surg. 2021;274:e1277–e1283.
Guerra F, Checcacci P, Vegni A, et al. Surgical and oncological outcomes of our first 59 cases of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy. J Visc Surg. 2019;156:185–190.
Marino MV, Podda M, Pisanu A, et al. Robotic-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy: technique description and performance evaluation after 60 cases. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutaneous Tech. 2020;30:156–163.
De Rooij T, Van Hilst J, Boerma D, et al. Impact of a nationwide training program in minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (LAELAPS). Ann Surg. 2016;264:754–762.
de Rooij T, van Hilst J, Topal B, et al. Outcomes of a multicenter training program in laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LAELAPS-2). Ann Surg. 2019;269:344–350.
Nota CL, Zwart MJ, et al. Developing a robotic pancreas program: the Dutch experience. J Vis Surg. 2017;3:106–1106.
Hogg ME, Tam V, Zenati M, et al. Mastery-based virtual reality robotic simulation curriculum: the first step toward operative robotic proficiency. J Surg Educ. 2017;74:477–485.
Tam V, Zenati M, Novak S, et al. Robotic pancreatoduodenectomy biotissue curriculum has validity and improves technical performance for surgical oncology fellows. J Surg Educ. 2017;74:1057–1065.
Jones LR, Zwart MJW, Molenaar IQ, et al. Robotic pancreatoduodenectomy: patient selection, volume criteria, and training programs. Scand J Surg. 2020;109:29–33.
von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, et al. The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Int J Surg. 2014;12:1495–1499.
Asbun HJ, Moekotte AL, Vissers FL, et al. The Miami international evidence-based guidelines on minimally invasive pancreas resection. Ann Surg. 2020;271:1–14.
Vining CC, Hogg ME. How to train and evaluate minimally invasive pancreas surgery. J Surg Oncol. 2020;122:41–48.
Smits FJ, Van Santvoort HC, Besselink MG, et al. Management of severe pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy. JAMA Surg. 2017;152:540–548.
Bressan AK, Wahba M, Dixon E, et al. Completion pancreatectomy in the acute management of pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a systematic review and qualitative synthesis ofthe literature. Hpb. 2018;20:20–27.
Hogg ME, Besselink MG, Clavien PA, et al. Training in minimally invasive pancreatic resections: a paradigm shift away from “see one, do one, teach one” Hpb. 2017;19:234–245.
Hogg ME, Zenati M, Novak S, et al. Grading of surgeon technical performance predicts postoperative pancreatic fistula for pancreaticoduodenectomy independent of patient-related variables. Ann Surg. 2016;264:482–489.
Montagnini AL, Røsok BI, Asbun HJ, et al. Standardizing terminology for minimally invasive pancreatic resection. Hpb. 2017;19:182–189.
Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004;240:205–213.
Bassi C, Marchegiani G, Dervenis C, et al. The 2016 update of the International Study Group (ISGPS) definition and grading of postoperative pancreatic fistula: 11 Years After. Surgery (United States). 2017;161:584–591.
Wente MN, Bassi C, Dervenis C, et al. Delayed gastric emptying (DGE) after pancreatic surgery: a suggested definition by the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS). Surgery. 2007;142:761–768.
Wente MN, Veit JA, Bassi C, et al. Postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH)-An International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) definition. Surgery. 2007;142:20–25.
Besselink MG, van Rijssen LB, Bassi C, et al. Definition and classification of chyle leak after pancreatic operation: a consensus statement by the International Study Group on Pancreatic Surgery. Surg (United States). 2017;161:365–372.
Koch M, Garden OJ, Padbury R, et al. Bile leakage after hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery: a definition and grading of severity by the International Study Group of Liver Surgery. Surgery. 2011;149:680–688.
Mangram AJ, Horan TC, Pearson ML, et al. Guideline for prevention of surgical site infection, 1999. Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1999;20:250–278. quiz 279–80.
Washington K, Berlin J, Branton P, et al. Protocol for the examination of specimens from patients with carcinoma of the pancreas. Cancer Protoc Templates. 2016;1:1–17.
Campbell F, Cairns A, Duthie F, Feakins R. The Royal College of Pathologists. Minimum datasets for the histopathological reporting of pancreatic, ampulla of Vater and bile duct carcinoma. In: Standards and Minimum Datasets for Reporting Cancers Duct Carcinoma. 2019.
Edge SB, Compton CC. The american joint committee on cancer: The 7th edition of the AJCC cancer staging manual and the future of TNM. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17:1471–1474.
Sánchez-Velázquez P, Muller X, Malleo G, et al. Benchmarks in pancreatic surgery: a novel tool for unbiased outcome comparisons. Ann Surg. 2019;270:211–218.
van Rijssen LB, Koerkamp BG, Zwart MJ, et al. Nationwide prospective audit of pancreatic surgery: design, accuracy, and outcomes of the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit. Hpb. 2017;19:919–926.
Kim MS, Kim WJ, Hyung WJ, et al. Comprehensive learning curve of robotic surgery: discovery from a multicenter prospective trial of robotic gastrectomy. Ann Surg. 2021;273:949–956.
Van Workum F, Stenstra MHBC, Berkelmans GHK, et al. Learning curve and associated morbidity of minimally invasive esophagectomy: a retrospective multicenter study. Ann Surg. 2019;269:88–94.
Markar SR, Mackenzie H, Lagergren P, et al. Surgical proficiency gain and survival after esophagectomy for cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34:1528–1536.
Hu Y, et al. Cumulative sum: a proficiencymetric for basic endoscopic training. J Surg Res. 2014;192:62–67.
Moekotte AL, Rawashdeh A, Asbun HJ, et al. Safe implementation of minimally invasive pancreas resection: a systematic review. Hpb 2020;22:637–648.
Rice MK, Hodges JC, Bellon J, et al. Association of Mentorship and a Formal Robotic Proficiency Skills Curriculum With Subsequent Generations’ Learning Curve and Safety for Robotic Pancreaticoduodenectomy. JAMA Surg. 2020;155:607–615.
Haney CM, Karadza E, Limen EF, et al. Training and learning curves in minimally invasive pancreatic surgery: from simulation to mastery. J Pancreatol. 2020;3:101–110.
Hogg ME, Zenati M, Novak S, et al. 2016 Scientific session of the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES), Boston, Massachusetts, USA, 16-19 March 2016. Surg Endosc. 2016; 30:317–324.
Kamarajah SK, Bundred JR, Marc OS, et al. A systematic review and network meta-analysis of different surgical approaches for pancreaticoduodenectomy. Hpb. 2020;22:329–339.
van der Geest LGM, van Rijssen LB, Molenaar IQ, et al. Volume-outcome relationships in pancreatoduodenectomy for cancer. Hpb. 2016;18:317–324.
Nimptsch U, Krautz C, Weber GF, et al. Nationwide in-hospital mortality following pancreatic surgery in Germany is higher than anticipated. Ann Surg. 2016;264:1082–1090.
McCulloch P, Altman DG, Campbell WB, et al. No surgical innovation without evaluation: the IDEAL recommendations. Lancet. 2009;374:1105–1112.
Zureikat AH, Postlewait LM, Liu Y, et al. A multi-institutional comparison of perioperative outcomes of robotic and open pancreaticoduodenectomy. Ann Surg. 2016;264:640–649.
Klompmaker S, Van Hilst J, Wellner UF, et al. Outcomes after minimally-invasive versus open pancreatoduodenectomy: a pan-european propensity score matched study. Ann Surg. 2020;271:356–363.
Nota CLMA, Robotgeassisteerde Whipple-operatie: Resultaten van de eerste 100 ingrepen in Nederland. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd.;163.
Nassour I, Tohme S, Hoehn R, et al. Safety and oncologic efficacy of robotic compared to open pancreaticoduodenectomy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for pancreatic cancer. Surg Endosc. 2021;35:2248–2254.
Boone BA, Zenati M, Hogg ME, et al. Assessment of quality outcomes for robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy: identification of the learning curve. JAMA Surg. 2015;150:416–422.
Zureikat AH, Moser AJ, Boone BA, et al. 250 robotic pancreatic resections: safety and feasibility. Ann Surg. 2013;258:554–559.
Zhang T, Zhao ZM, Gao YX, et al. The learning curve for a surgeon in robotassisted laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: a retrospective study in a high-volume pancreatic center. Surg Endosc. 2019;33:2927–2933.
Dokmak S, Ftériche FS, Aussilhou B, et al. Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy should not be routine for resection of periampullary tumors. JAm Coll Surg. 2015;220:831–838.
Van Roessel S, Mackay TM, Van Dieren S, et al. Textbook outcome: nationwide analysis of a novel quality measure in pancreatic surgery. Ann Surg. 2020;271:155–162.
Sweigert PJ, Eguia E, Baker MS, et al. Assessment of textbook oncologic outcomes following pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma. J Surg Oncol. 2020;121:936–944.
Onete VG, Besselink MG, Salsbach CM, et al. Impact of centralization of pancreatoduodenectomy on reported radical resections rates in a nationwide pathology database. Hpb. 2015;17:736–742.
Zhao Z, Yin Z, Hang Z, et al. A systemic review and an updated meta-analysis: Minimally invasive vs open pancreaticoduodenectomy. Sci Rep. 2017;7:1–8.