Misawa, Takeyuki

AbstractBackgroundLaparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) requires sufficient laparoscopic training for optimal outcomes. Our aim is to determine the learning curve and investigate the factors influencing surgical outcomes during the learning curve.MethodsWe analyzed surgical results of 150 consecutive cases of LPD performed by three hepatopancreatobiliary surgeons during their 50 first cases. Learning curves were constructed by cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis. Preoperative factors influencing resection time and blood loss were investigated in the introductory and stable periods.Results The learning curve could be divided into three phases: initial (1–20 cases), plateau (21–30), and stable (31–50). Resection time with lymph node dissection was significantly longer during the introductory period (initial and plateau periods) (P < 0.01) but not the stable phase (P = 0.51). Multivariate analysis revealed that patients with pancreatitis had longer resection times and massive blood loss in both the introductory and stable periods (stable phase). High visceral fat area was also significantly related to massive blood loss in the introductory period (P = 0.04).ConclusionsHepatopancreatobiliary surgeons need more than 30 cases until LPD becomes stable. Lymph node dissection and patients with high visceral fat area and concomitant pancreatitis should be avoided during the introductory period of the learning curve.

AbstractBackgroundSeveral factors affect the level of difficulty of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP). The purpose of this study was to develop a difficulty scoring (DS) system to quantify the degree of difficulty in LDP.MethodsWe collected clinical data for 80 patients who underwent LDP. A 10‐level difficulty index was developed and subcategorized into a three‐level difficulty index; 1–3 as low, 4–6 as intermediate, and 7–10 as high index. The automatic linear modeling (LINEAR) statistical tool was used to identify factors that significantly increase level of difficulty in LDP.ResultsThe operator's 10‐level DS concordance between the 10‐level DS by the reviewers, LINEAR index DS, and clinical index DS systems were analyzed, and the weighted Cohen's kappa statistic were at 0.869, 0.729, and 0.648, respectively, showing good to excellent inter‐rater agreement. We identified five factors significantly affecting level of difficulty in LDP; type of operation, resection line, proximity of tumor to major vessel, tumor extension to peripancreatic tissue, and left‐sided portal hypertension/splenomegaly.ConclusionsThis novel DS for LDP adequately quantified the degree of difficulty, and can be useful for selecting patients for LDP, in conjunction with fitness for surgery and prognosis.

AbstractBackgroundMinimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) has gained in popularity recently. However, there is no consensus on whether to preserve the spleen or not. In this study, we compared MIDP outcomes between spleen‐preserving distal pancreatectomy (SPDP) and distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy (DPS); as well as outcomes between splenic vessel preservation (SVP) and Warshaw's technique (WT).MethodsA systematic search of PubMed (MEDLINE) and Cochrane Library was conducted and the reference lists of review articles were hand‐searched.ResultsFifteen relevant studies with 769 patients were selected for meta‐analyses of DPS and SPDP, while another 15 studies with 841 patients were used for the analysis between SVP and WT. Compared with the DPS group, SPDP patients had significantly lower incidences of infectious complications (P = 0.006) and pancreatic fistula (P = 0.002), shorter operative time (P < 0.001), and less blood loss (P = 0.01). Compared with WT, SVP patients had significantly lower incidences of splenic infarction (P < 0.001) and secondary splenectomy (P = 0.003). Subanalysis for laparoscopic surgery alone had similar results.ConclusionsBased on this study, SPDP has significantly superior outcomes compared to DPS. When a spleen is preserved, SVP has better outcomes over WT for reducing splenic complications.

Abstract In some cases, laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) may be difficult to perform in patients with acute cholecystitis (AC) with severe inflammation and fibrosis. The Tokyo Guidelines 2018 (TG18) expand the indications for LC under difficult conditions for each level of severity of AC. As a result of expanding the indications for LC to treat AC, it is absolutely necessary to avoid any increase in bile duct injury (BDI), particularly vasculo‐biliary injury (VBI), which is known to occur at a certain rate in LC. Since the Tokyo Guidelines 2013 (TG13), an attempt has been made to assess intraoperative findings as objective indicators of surgical difficulty; based on expert consensus on these difficulty indicators, bail‐out procedures (including conversion to open cholecystectomy) have been indicated for cases in which LC for AC is difficult to perform. A bail‐out procedure should be chosen if, when the Calot's triangle is appropriately retracted and used as a landmark, a critical view of safety (CVS) cannot be achieved because of the presence of nondissectable scarring or severe fibrosis. We propose standardized safe steps for LC to treat AC. To achieve a CVS, it is vital to dissect at a location above (on the ventral side of) the imaginary line connecting the base of the left medial section (Segment 4) and the roof of Rouvière's sulcus and to fulfill the three criteria of CVS before dividing any structures. Achieving a CVS prevents the misidentification of the cystic duct and the common bile duct, which are most commonly confused. Free full articles and mobile app of TG18 are available at: http://www.jshbps.jp/modules/en/index.php?content_id=47 . Related clinical questions and references are also included.

Abstract Bile duct injury ( BDI ) during laparoscopic cholecystectomy remains a serious iatrogenic surgical complication. BDI most often occurs as a result of misidentification of the anatomy; however, clinical evidence on its precise mechanism and surgeons’ perceptions is scarce. Surgeons from Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and the USA, etc. ( n = 614) participated in a questionnaire regarding their BDI experience and near‐misses; and perceptions on landmarks, intraoperative findings, and surgical techniques. Respondents voted for a Delphi process and graded each item on a five‐point scale. The consensus was built when ≥80% of overall responses were 4 or 5. Response rates for the first‐ and second‐round Delphi were 60.6% and 74.9%, respectively. Misidentification of local anatomy accounted for 76.2% of BDI . Final consensus was reached on: (1) Effective retraction of the gallbladder, (2) Always obtaining critical view of safety, and (3) Avoiding excessive use of electrocautery/clipping as vital procedures; and (4) Calot's triangle area and (5) Critical view of safety as important landmarks. For (6) Impacted gallstone and (7) Severe fibrosis/scarring in Calot's triangle, bail‐out procedures may be indicated. A consensus was reached among expert surgeons on relevant landmarks and intraoperative findings and appropriate surgical techniques to avoid BDI .