Back to Authors

Callery, Mark P.

Mayo Clinic

Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center

Citations 4

International Delphi Expert Consensus on Safe Return to Surgical and Endoscopic Practice
Asbun, Horacio J. , Hilal, Mohammad Abu , Kunzler, F. , Asbun, Domenech , Bonjer, Jaap, Conlon, Kevin, Feldman, LS, Morales‐Conde, Salvador , Pietrabissa, Andrea , Schlachta, Christopher M. , Sylla, Patricia , Targarona, Eduardo M. , Agra, Yolanda, Callery, Mark P., Cleary, SP, ́Cruz, Len D, Eckert, Philippe, Evans, Chad, Hs, Han, Jones, DB, Gan, TJ, Koch, Daniel, Lillemoe, K. D., Lomanto, D, Marks, Jeffrey, Matthews, Brent, Mellinger, John, Melvin, WS, Moreno-Paquentin, E, Navarrete, Claudio , Pawlik, TM, Pessaux, Patrick , Schwaitzberg, Steven D. , Shah, Paresh, Szokol, Joseph W., Talamini, Mark A., Torres, Rosa Del Pilar Uriarte , Triboldi, Alessandro, Udomsawaengsup, Suthep , Valsecchi, Federica, Vauthey, JN, Wallace, Michael, Sd, Wexner, Zinner, Michael J. , Wallace, Michael B. , Wexner, Steven D. , Cleary, Sean P. , Wallace, Michael B , Wexner, Steven D , Morales-Conde, Salvador , Bonjer, Hendrik Jaap , Conlon, Kevin, Demartines, Nicolas , Feldman, Liane S. , Pryor, Aurora Dawn , Agra, Yolanda, Besselink, Marc G , Eckert, Philippe, Evans, Chad, Jones, Daniel B, Gan, Tong J. , Koch, Daniel, Marks, Jeffrey, Matthews, Brent, Mellinger, John, Melvin, William Scott , Moreno-Paquentín, Eduardo, Pawlik, Timothy M , Ricciardi, Walter , Shah, Paresh, Torres, Ricardo, Wallace, Michael, Francis, Nader Kamal

Annals of Surgery | December 31, 2020 | Volume: 274 | Issue: 1 | Pages: 50-56

10.1097/sla.0000000000004674 Get It

Objective: The aim of this work is to formulate recommendations based on global expert consensus to guide the surgical community on the safe resumption of surgical and endoscopic activities. Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has caused marked disruptions in the delivery of surgical care worldwide. A thoughtful, structured approach to resuming surgical services is necessary as the impact of COVID-19 becomes better controlled. The Coronavirus Global Surgical Collaborative sought to formulate, through rigorous scientific methodology, consensus-based recommendations in collaboration with a multidisciplinary group of international experts and policymakers. Methods: Recommendations were developed following a Delphi process. Domain topics were formulated and subsequently subdivided into questions pertinent to different aspects of surgical care in the COVID-19 crisis. Forty-four experts from 15 countries across 4 continents drafted statements based on the specific questions. Anonymous Delphi voting on the statements was performed in 2 rounds, as well as in a telepresence meeting. Results: One hundred statements were formulated across 10 domains. The statements addressed terminology, impact on procedural services, patient/staff safety, managing a backlog of surgeries, methods to restart and sustain surgical services, education, and research. Eighty-three of the statements were approved during the first round of Delphi voting, and 11 during the second round. A final telepresence meeting and discussion yielded acceptance of 5 other statements. Conclusions: The Delphi process resulted in 99 recommendations. These consensus statements provide expert guidance, based on scientific methodology, for the safe resumption of surgical activities during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Influence of Intraoperative Blood Loss on Fistula Development Following Pancreatoduodenectomy
Trudeau, Maxwell T. , Casciani, Fabio , Seykora, Thomas F. , Asbun, Horacio J. , Ball, Chad G. , Bassi, Claudio , Behrman, Stephen W. , Berger, Adam C. , Bloomston, Mark P., Callery, Mark P., Castillo, Carlos Fernández‐del , Christein, John D. , Dillhoff, Mary , Dickson, Euan J., Dixon, Elijah , Fisher, William E., House, Michael G. , Malleo, Giuseppe , Salem, Ronald R. , Wolfgang, Christopher L. , Zureikat, Amer H., Vollmer, Charles M., Group, on behalf of the Pancreas Fistula Study, Maggino, Laura , Hughes, Steven J. , Kent, Tara Sotsky , Group, on behalf of the Pancreas Fistula Study

Annals of Surgery | November 17, 2020 | Volume: 276 | Issue: 5 | Pages: e527-e535

10.1097/sla.0000000000004549 Get It

Objective: To investigate the role of intraoperative estimated blood loss (EBL) on development of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF) after pancreatoduodenectomy (PD). Background: Minimizing EBL has been shown to decrease transfusions and provide better perioperative outcomes in PD. EBL is also felt to be influential on CR-POPF development. Methods: This study consists of 5534 PDs from a 17-institution collaborative (2003–2018). EBL was progressively categorized (≤150mL; 151–400mL; 401–1,000 mL; > 1,000 mL). Impact of additive EBL was assessed using 20 3– factor fistula risk score (FRS) scenarios reflective of endogenous CR-POPF risk. Results: CR-POPF developed in 13.6% of patients (N = 753) and median EBL was 400 mL (interquartile range 250-600 mL). CR-POPF and Grade C POPF were associated with elevated EBL (median 350 vs 400 mL, P = 0.002; 372 vs 500 mL, P < 0.001, respectively). Progressive EBL cohorts displayed incremental CR-POPF rates (8.5%, 13.4%, 15.2%, 16.9%; P < 0.001). EBL >400mL was associated with increased CR-POPF occurrence in 13/20 endogenous risk scenarios. Moreover, 8 of 10 scenarios predicated on a soft gland demonstrated increased CR-POPF incidence. Hypothetical projections demonstrate significant reductions in CR-POPF can be obtained with 1–, 2–, and 3-point decreases in FRS points attributed to EBL risk (12.2%, 17.4%, and 20.0%; P < 0.001). This is especially pronounced in high-risk (FRS7–10) patients, who demonstrate up to a 31% reduction (P < 0.001). Surgeons in the lowest-quartile of median EBL demonstrated CR-POPF rates less than half those in the upper-quartile (7.9% vs 18.8%; P < 0.001). Conclusion: EBL independently contributes significant biological risk to CR-POPF. Substantial reductions in CR-POPF occurrence are projected and obtainable by minimizing EBL. Decreased individual surgeon EBL is associated with improvements in CR-POPF.
The Fistula Risk Score Catalog
Trudeau, Maxwell T. , Casciani, Fabio , Ecker, Brett L. , Seykora, Thomas F. , Puri, Priya , McMillan, Matthew T. , Miller, Benjamin C. , Pratt, Wande B., Asbun, Horacio J. , Ball, Chad G, Bassi, Claudio , Behrman, Stephen W. , Berger, Adam C. , Bloomston, Mark , Callery, Mark P., Castillo, Carlos Fernández‐del , Christein, John D. , Dillhoff, Mary , Dickson, Euan J., Dixon, Elijah , House, Michael G. , Hughes, Steven J. , Malleo, Giuseppe , Salem, Ronald R. , Wolfgang, Christopher L. , Vollmer, Charles M., Maggino, Laura , Ball, Chad G, Fisher, William P. , Kent, Tara Sotsky , Zureikat, Amer H.

Annals of Surgery | June 15, 2020 | Volume: 275 | Issue: 2 | Pages: e463-e472

10.1097/sla.0000000000004068 Get It

Objective: This study aims to present a full spectrum of individual patient presentations of pancreatic fistula risk, and to define the utility of mitigation strategies amongst some of the most prevalent, and vulnerable scenarios surgeons encounter. Background: The FRS has been utilized to identify technical strategies associated with reduced CR-POPF incidence across various risk strata. However, risk-stratification using the FRS has never been investigated with greater granularity. By deriving all possible combinations of FRS elements, individualized risk assessment could be utilized for precision medicine purposes. Methods: FRS profiles and outcomes of 5533 PDs were accrued from 17 international institutions (2003–2019). The FRS was used to derive 80 unique combinations of patient “scenarios.” Risk-matched analyses were conducted using a Bonferroni adjustment to identify scenarios with increased vulnerability for CR-POPF occurrence. Subsequently, these scenarios were analyzed using multivariable regression to explore optimal mitigation approaches. Results: The overall CR-POPF rate was 13.6%. All 80 possible scenarios were encountered, with the most frequent being scenario #1 (8.1%) – the only negligible-risk scenario (CR-POPF rate = 0.7%). The moderate-risk zone had the most scenarios (50), patients (N = 3246), CR-POPFs (65.2%), and greatest non-zero discrepancy in CR-POPF rates between scenarios (18-fold). In the risk-matched analysis, 2 scenarios (#59 and 60) displayed increased vulnerability for CR-POPF relative to the moderate-risk zone (both P < 0.001). Multivariable analysis revealed factors associated with CR-POPF in these scenarios: pancreaticogastrostomy reconstruction [odds ratio (OR) 4.67], omission of drain placement (OR 5.51), and prophylactic octreotide (OR 3.09). When comparing the utilization of best practice strategies to patients who did not have these conjointly utilized, there was a significant decrease in CR-POPF (10.7% vs 35.5%, P < 0.001; OR 0.20, 95% confidence interval 0.12–0.33). Conclusion: Through this data, a comprehensive fistula risk catalog has been created and the most clinically-impactful scenarios have been discerned. Focusing on individual scenarios provides a practical way to approach precision medicine, allowing for more directed and efficient management of CR-POPF.
The Miami International Evidence-based Guidelines on Minimally Invasive Pancreas Resection
Asbun, Horacio J. , Moekotte, Alma , Vissers, Frederique L., Kunzler, F. , Cipriani, Federica , D’Angelica, Michael I. , Balduzzi, Alberto , Bassi, Claudio , Björnsson, Bergþór , Boggi, Ugo , Callery, Mark P., Chiaro, Marco Del , Coimbra, Felipe José Fernández , Conrad, Claudius , Cook, Andrew , Coppola, Alessandro , Dervenis, Christos, Dokmak, Safi , Edil, Barish H. , Giulianotti, Pier Cristoforo , Hansen, Paul D., Heijde, Nicky van der , Hilst, Jony van , Hester, Caitlin A. , Hogg, Melissa E. , Jarufe, Nicolás , Jeyarajah, D. Rohan, Kim, Song Cheol, Khatkov, Igor , Kokudo, Norihiro , Kooby, David A. , Korrel, Maarten , Leon, Francisco J. de, Lluís, Núria , Lof, Sanne , Demartines, Nicolas , Merchant, Nipun B. , Molenaar, I. Quintus, Moravek, Cassadie, Mou, Yiping , Nealon, William H. , Palanivelu, Chinnusamy, Pessaux, Patrick , Pitt, Henry A. , Primrose, John N., Rawashdeh, Arab , Sanford, Dominic E. , Senthilnathan, Palanisamy, Shrikhande, Shailesh V. , Stauffer, John , Takaori, Kyoichi , Tang, Chung Ngai, Vollmer, Charles M., Wakabayashi, Go , Walsh, R. Matthew , Wang, Shin-E, Zinner, Michael J. , Wolfgang, Christopher L. , Zureikat, Amer H. , Zwart, M. , Conlon, Kevin C. , Kendrick, Michael L., Zeh, Herbert J. , Hilal, Mohammad Abu, Besselink, Marc G. , Primrose, John , Hilal, Mohammad Abu , Demartines, N , A Stauffer, John , Alseidi, Adnan A. , Edwin, Bjørn , Han, Ho-Seong , Jeyarajah, D. Rohan , Keck, Tobias , Machado, Marcel Autran C. , Martinie, John B. , Moravek, Cassadie, Nakamura, Masafumi , Palanivelu, Chinnusamy , Polanco, Patricio Marcelo , Talamonti, Marina , Wang, Shin‐E , Kendrick, Michael L. , Besselink, Marc G , Cipriani, Federica

Annals of Surgery | September 22, 2019 | Volume: 271 | Issue: 1 | Pages: 1-14

10.1097/sla.0000000000003590 Get It

Objective: The aim of this study was to develop and externally validate the first evidence-based guidelines on minimally invasive pancreas resection (MIPR) before and during the International Evidence-based Guidelines on Minimally Invasive Pancreas Resection (IG-MIPR) meeting in Miami (March 2019). Summary Background Data: MIPR has seen rapid development in the past decade. Promising outcomes have been reported by early adopters from high-volume centers. Subsequently, multicenter series as well as randomized controlled trials were reported; however, guidelines for clinical practice were lacking. Methods: The Scottisch Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) methodology was used, incorporating these 4 items: systematic reviews using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases to answer clinical questions, whenever possible in PICO style, the GRADE approach for assessment of the quality of evidence, the Delphi method for establishing consensus on the developed recommendations, and the AGREE-II instrument for the assessment of guideline quality and external validation. The current guidelines are cosponsored by the International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the Americas Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the Asian-Pacific Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the European-African Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery, Pancreas Club, the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgery, the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract, and the Society of Surgical Oncology. Results: After screening 16,069 titles, 694 studies were reviewed, and 291 were included. The final 28 recommendations covered 6 topics; laparoscopic and robotic distal pancreatectomy, central pancreatectomy, pancreatoduodenectomy, as well as patient selection, training, learning curve, and minimal annual center volume required to obtain optimal outcomes and patient safety. Conclusion: The IG-MIPR using SIGN methodology give guidance to surgeons, hospital administrators, patients, and medical societies on the use and outcome of MIPR as well as the approach to be taken regarding this challenging type of surgery.