Can trainees safely perform pancreatoenteric anastomosis? A systematic review, meta-analysis, and risk-adjusted analysis of postoperative pancreatic fistula.


Journal

Surgery
ISSN: 1532-7361
Titre abrégé: Surgery
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0417347

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
07 2022
Historique:
received: 29 10 2021
revised: 22 12 2021
accepted: 27 12 2021
pubmed: 1 3 2022
medline: 22 6 2022
entrez: 28 2 2022
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

The complexity of pancreaticoduodenectomy and fear of morbidity, particularly postoperative pancreatic fistula, can be a barrier to surgical trainees gaining operative experience. This meta-analysis sought to compare the postoperative pancreatic fistula rate after pancreatoenteric anastomosis by trainees or established surgeons. A systematic review of the literature was performed using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, with differences in postoperative pancreatic fistula rates after pancreatoenteric anastomosis between trainee-led versus consultant/attending surgeons pooled using meta-analysis. Variation in rates of postoperative pancreatic fistula was further explored using risk-adjusted outcomes using published risk scores and cumulative sum control chart analysis in a retrospective cohort. Across 14 cohorts included in the meta-analysis, trainees tended toward a lower but nonsignificant rate of all postoperative pancreatic fistula (odds ratio: 0.77, P = .45) and clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (odds ratio: 0.69, P = .37). However, there was evidence of case selection, with trainees being less likely to operate on patients with a pancreatic duct width <3 mm (odds ratio: 0.45, P = .05). Similarly, analysis of a retrospective cohort (N = 756 cases) found patients operated by trainees to have significantly lower predicted all postoperative pancreatic fistula (median: 20 vs 26%, P < .001) and clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (7 vs 9%, P = .020) rates than consultant/attending surgeons, based on preoperative risk scores. After adjusting for this on multivariable analysis, the risks of all postoperative pancreatic fistula (odds ratio: 1.18, P = .604) and clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (odds ratio: 0.85, P = .693) remained similar after pancreatoenteric anastomosis by trainees or consultant/attending surgeons. Pancreatoenteric anastomosis, when performed by trainees, is associated with acceptable outcomes. There is evidence of case selection among patients undergoing surgery by trainees; hence, risk adjustment provides a critical tool for the objective evaluation of performance.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
The complexity of pancreaticoduodenectomy and fear of morbidity, particularly postoperative pancreatic fistula, can be a barrier to surgical trainees gaining operative experience. This meta-analysis sought to compare the postoperative pancreatic fistula rate after pancreatoenteric anastomosis by trainees or established surgeons.
METHODS
A systematic review of the literature was performed using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, with differences in postoperative pancreatic fistula rates after pancreatoenteric anastomosis between trainee-led versus consultant/attending surgeons pooled using meta-analysis. Variation in rates of postoperative pancreatic fistula was further explored using risk-adjusted outcomes using published risk scores and cumulative sum control chart analysis in a retrospective cohort.
RESULTS
Across 14 cohorts included in the meta-analysis, trainees tended toward a lower but nonsignificant rate of all postoperative pancreatic fistula (odds ratio: 0.77, P = .45) and clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (odds ratio: 0.69, P = .37). However, there was evidence of case selection, with trainees being less likely to operate on patients with a pancreatic duct width <3 mm (odds ratio: 0.45, P = .05). Similarly, analysis of a retrospective cohort (N = 756 cases) found patients operated by trainees to have significantly lower predicted all postoperative pancreatic fistula (median: 20 vs 26%, P < .001) and clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (7 vs 9%, P = .020) rates than consultant/attending surgeons, based on preoperative risk scores. After adjusting for this on multivariable analysis, the risks of all postoperative pancreatic fistula (odds ratio: 1.18, P = .604) and clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (odds ratio: 0.85, P = .693) remained similar after pancreatoenteric anastomosis by trainees or consultant/attending surgeons.
CONCLUSION
Pancreatoenteric anastomosis, when performed by trainees, is associated with acceptable outcomes. There is evidence of case selection among patients undergoing surgery by trainees; hence, risk adjustment provides a critical tool for the objective evaluation of performance.

Identifiants

pubmed: 35221107
pii: S0039-6060(21)01256-3
doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2021.12.033
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Meta-Analysis Review Systematic Review

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

319-328

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Auteurs

Rupaly Pande (R)

Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery Unit, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham, UK. Electronic address: rupaly.pande@uhb.nhs.uk.

James M Halle-Smith (JM)

Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery Unit, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham, UK.

Thomas Thorne (T)

Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery Unit, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham, UK.

Lydia Hiddema (L)

Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery Unit, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham, UK.

James Hodson (J)

Institute of Translational Medicine, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham, UK.

Keith J Roberts (KJ)

Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery Unit, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham, UK; Institute of Immunology and Immunotherapy, University of Birmingham, UK.

Ali Arshad (A)

Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery Unit, University Hospital of Southampton, New Zealand.

Saxon Connor (S)

Department of General Surgery, Christchurch Hospital, New Zealand.

Kevin C P Conlon (KCP)

Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery Unit, University of Dublin, Trinity College, Ireland.

Euan J Dickson (EJ)

Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery Unit, Glasgow Royal Infirmary, Scotland, UK.

Francesco Giovinazzo (F)

General Surgery and Liver Transplantation Unit, Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli, Rome, Italy. Electronic address: https://www.twitter.com/FranGiovinazzo.

Ewen Harrison (E)

Centre for Medical Informatics, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, UK. Electronic address: https://www.twitter.com/ewenharrison.

Nicola de Liguori Carino (N)

Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery Unit, Manchester University NHS FT, UK. Electronic address: https://www.twitter.com/deLiguoriCarino.

Todd Hore (T)

Department of General Surgery, Christchurch Hospital, New Zealand.

Stephen R Knight (SR)

Centre for Medical Informatics, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, UK.

Benjamin Loveday (B)

Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery Unit, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Parkville, VIC, Australia. Electronic address: https://www.twitter.com/BenPTLoveday.

Laura Magill (L)

Birmingham Surgical Trials Consortium, University of Birmingham, UK.

Darius Mirza (D)

Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery Unit, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham, UK. Electronic address: https://www.twitter.com/DrDariusMirza.

Sanjay Pandanaboyana (S)

HPB and Transplant Surgery, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, UK. Electronic address: https://www.twitter.com/Sanjay_HPB.

Rita J Perry (RJ)

Birmingham Surgical Trials Consortium, University of Birmingham, UK.

Thomas Pinkney (T)

Birmingham Surgical Trials Consortium, University of Birmingham, UK. Electronic address: https://www.twitter.com/pinkney_t.

Ajith K Siriwardena (AK)

Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery Unit, Manchester University NHS FT, UK.

Sohei Satoi (S)

Division of Pancreatobiliary Surgery, Kansai Medical University, Osaka, Japan; Division of Surgical Oncology, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO.

James Skipworth (J)

Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery Unit, University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, UK.

Stefan Stättner (S)

Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery Unit, Salzkammergut Klinikum OÖG, Sweden. Electronic address: https://www.twitter.com/SStattner.

Robert P Sutcliffe (RP)

Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery Unit, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham, UK. Electronic address: https://www.twitter.com/liveRPancSurg.

Bobby Tingstedt (B)

Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery Unit, Lund University, Sweden. Electronic address: https://www.twitter.com/conlonhpb.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH