Learning curve stratified outcomes after robotic pancreatoduodenectomy: International multicenter experience.


Journal

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

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
19 Aug 2024
Historique:
received: 17 01 2023
revised: 30 01 2024
accepted: 21 05 2024
medline: 21 8 2024
pubmed: 21 8 2024
entrez: 20 8 2024
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

Robotic pancreatoduodenectomy is increasingly being implemented worldwide, with good results reported from individual expert centers. However, it is unclear to what extent outcomes will continue to improve during the learning curve, as large international studies are lacking. An international retrospective multicenter case series, including consecutive patients after robotic pancreatoduodenectomy from 18 centers in 8 countries in Europe, Asia, and South America until December 31, 2019, was conducted. A cumulative sum analysis was performed to determine the inflection points for the feasibility (operative time and blood loss) and proficiency (postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C and major morbidity) learning curves. Outcomes were compared in 3 groups on the basis of the learning curve inflection points. Overall, 2,186 patients after robotic pancreatoduodenectomy were included. The feasibility learning curve was reached after 30-45 robotic pancreatoduodenectomy procedures and the proficiency learning curve after 90 robotic pancreatoduodenectomy procedures. These inflection points created 3 phases, which were associated with major morbidity (24.7%, 23.4%, and 12.3%, P < .001) but not 30-day mortality (2.1%, 2.0%, and 1.5%, P = .670). Other outcomes mostly continued to improve, including median operative time 432, 390, and 300 minutes (P < .0001), conversion 6.0%, 4.7%, and 2.7% (P = .002), bile leakage 7.2%, 4.1%, and 2.4% (P < .001), postpancreatectomy hemorrhage 6.5%, 6.1%, and 1.8% (n = 21) but not R0 resection (pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma only) 78.5%, 73.9%, and 82.8% (P = .35), and 90-day mortality rate 3.1%, 3.5%, and 2.1% (P = .191). Centers performing >20 robotic pancreatoduodenectomies annually had lower rates of conversion, reoperation, and shorter median operative time as compared with centers performing 10-20 robotic pancreatoduodenectomies annually. This international multicenter study demonstrates that most outcomes of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy continued to improve during 3 learning curve phases without a negative effect on 90-day mortality. Randomized studies are needed in high-volume centers that have surpassed the first learning curves, to compare these outcomes with the open approach.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Robotic pancreatoduodenectomy is increasingly being implemented worldwide, with good results reported from individual expert centers. However, it is unclear to what extent outcomes will continue to improve during the learning curve, as large international studies are lacking.
METHODS METHODS
An international retrospective multicenter case series, including consecutive patients after robotic pancreatoduodenectomy from 18 centers in 8 countries in Europe, Asia, and South America until December 31, 2019, was conducted. A cumulative sum analysis was performed to determine the inflection points for the feasibility (operative time and blood loss) and proficiency (postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C and major morbidity) learning curves. Outcomes were compared in 3 groups on the basis of the learning curve inflection points.
RESULTS RESULTS
Overall, 2,186 patients after robotic pancreatoduodenectomy were included. The feasibility learning curve was reached after 30-45 robotic pancreatoduodenectomy procedures and the proficiency learning curve after 90 robotic pancreatoduodenectomy procedures. These inflection points created 3 phases, which were associated with major morbidity (24.7%, 23.4%, and 12.3%, P < .001) but not 30-day mortality (2.1%, 2.0%, and 1.5%, P = .670). Other outcomes mostly continued to improve, including median operative time 432, 390, and 300 minutes (P < .0001), conversion 6.0%, 4.7%, and 2.7% (P = .002), bile leakage 7.2%, 4.1%, and 2.4% (P < .001), postpancreatectomy hemorrhage 6.5%, 6.1%, and 1.8% (n = 21) but not R0 resection (pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma only) 78.5%, 73.9%, and 82.8% (P = .35), and 90-day mortality rate 3.1%, 3.5%, and 2.1% (P = .191). Centers performing >20 robotic pancreatoduodenectomies annually had lower rates of conversion, reoperation, and shorter median operative time as compared with centers performing 10-20 robotic pancreatoduodenectomies annually.
CONCLUSION CONCLUSIONS
This international multicenter study demonstrates that most outcomes of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy continued to improve during 3 learning curve phases without a negative effect on 90-day mortality. Randomized studies are needed in high-volume centers that have surpassed the first learning curves, to compare these outcomes with the open approach.

Identifiants

pubmed: 39164152
pii: S0039-6060(24)00375-1
doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2024.05.044
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Auteurs

Leia R Jones (LR)

Department of General Surgery, Istituto Ospedaliero Fondazione Poliambulanza, Brescia, Italy; Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Cancer Center Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Maurice J W Zwart (MJW)

Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Cancer Center Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Nine de Graaf (N)

Department of General Surgery, Istituto Ospedaliero Fondazione Poliambulanza, Brescia, Italy; Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Cancer Center Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Kongyuan Wei (K)

Department of Surgery, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, China.

Liu Qu (L)

Department of Surgery, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, China.

Jin Jiabin (J)

Department of Surgery, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, China.

Fu Ningzhen (F)

Department of Surgery, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, China.

Shin-E Wang (SE)

Department of Surgery, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taiwan.

Hongbeom Kim (H)

Department of Surgery, Seoul National University College of Medicine, South Korea.

Emanuele F Kauffmann (EF)

Division of General and Transplant Surgery, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Pisana, Pisa, Italy.

Roeland F de Wilde (RF)

Department of Surgery, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

I Quintus Molenaar (IQ)

Department of Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands.

Ying Jui Chao (YJ)

Department of Surgery, National Cheng Kung University Hospital, Tainan, Taiwan.

Luca Moraldi (L)

Department of Surgery, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Careggi, Florence, Italy.

Olivier Saint-Marc (O)

Department of Surgery, Center Hospitalier Orleans, France.

Felix Nickel (F)

Department of Surgery, University Hospital of Heidelberg, Germany.

Cheng-Ming Peng (CM)

Department of Surgery, Chung Shan Medical University Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan.

Chang Moo Kang (CM)

Department of Surgery, Yonsei University Severance Hospital, Sinchon-dong, South Korea.

Marcel Machado (M)

Department of Surgery, Hospital Sírio-Libanês, São Paulo, Brazil.

Misha D P Luyer (MDP)

Department of Surgery, Catharina Hospital Eindhoven, the Netherlands.

Daan J Lips (DJ)

Department of Surgery, Medisch Spectrum Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands.

Bert A Bonsing (BA)

Department of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, the Netherlands.

Thilo Hackert (T)

Department of Surgery, University Hospital of Heidelberg, Germany.

Yan-Shen Shan (YS)

Department of Surgery, National Cheng Kung University Hospital, Tainan, Taiwan.

Bas Groot Koerkamp (B)

Department of Surgery, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

Yi-Ming Shyr (YM)

Department of Surgery, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taiwan.

Baiyong Shen (B)

Department of Surgery, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, China.

Ugo Boggi (U)

Division of General and Transplant Surgery, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Pisana, Pisa, Italy.

Rong Liu (R)

Department of Surgery, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, China.

Jin-Young Jang (JY)

Department of Surgery, Seoul National University College of Medicine, South Korea.

Marc G Besselink (MG)

Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Cancer Center Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Electronic address: m.g.besselink@amsterdamUMC.nl.

Mohammad Abu Hilal (M)

Department of General Surgery, Istituto Ospedaliero Fondazione Poliambulanza, Brescia, Italy; Department of Surgery, University Hospital Southampton NHS, United Kingdom. Electronic address: abuhilal9@gmail.com.

Classifications MeSH