Citations

Objective: To establish international benchmark values for relevant outcome parameters in robotic Whipple. Summary Background Data: For safe adoption of surgical innovation, robust quality control is essential. Benchmarking is a validated tool for assessing surgical performance. Recent international consensus identified establishing benchmark values for robotic Whipple as top priority. Methods: We analyzed consecutive patients undergoing robotic Whipple between 2020-2023 with a minimum one-year follow-up. Reference centers were required to perform ≥15 cases/year, be scientifically active in the field, and maintain a prospective database. Benchmark criteria included benign or resectable malignant disease without neoadjuvant therapy, arterial resection, major co-morbidities, or significant previous abdominal surgery. Benchmarks were established for 13 outcome parameters. Result: The benchmark cohort comprised 418 patients from 12 centers across four continents. Benchmark values were: conversion rate ≤4.3%, transfusion rate ≤2.1%, 6-month mortality ≤2.2%, major complications ≤23.2%, and CCI® ≤20.9. Clinically relevant pancreatic fistula (grade B/C) and hemorrhage (grade B/C) rates were ≤23.6% and ≤12.7%, respectively. For pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (n=123), the benchmark for lymph node yield was ≥20. Higher surgical difficulty was associated with increased overall postoperative morbidity (R 2 =0.38, P =0.019), higher center caseload with reduced pancreas-specific complications (R 2 =0.28, P =0.044). Independent POPF predictors included duct diameter ≤4 mm (OR 1.37, 95% CI: 1.03, 1.82), anticoagulation (OR 2.45, 95% CI: 1.47, 3.99), and indication other than PDAC (OR 2.33, 95% CI: 1.68, 3.27). Conclusions: This study establishes the first international benchmarks for robotic Whipple, demonstrating oncologic outcomes and morbidity comparable to open surgery with the benefits of minimally invasive surgery.

Importance Total pancreatectomy (TP) is indicated for advanced pancreatic cancer or multifocal tumors. Furthermore, TP may be performed to avoid the risk of pancreatic fistula in selected patients to improve the perioperative risk profile. Objective To define reference values for TP based on a low-risk cohort treated at expert centers. Design, Setting, and Participants This multicenter study analyzed outcomes from patients undergoing primary TP for malignant or benign lesions from 25 international expert centers from January 2017 to November 2023. Low-risk patients undergoing TP (LR-TP) were without vascular resections or significant comorbidities. Exposures TP. Main Outcomes and Measures Twenty reference values were derived from the 75th or the 25th percentile of the median values of all centers. Outcomes of LR-TP were compared with a cohort of TP with vascular resection, TP due to high-risk pancreatic anastomosis, and the benchmark values for low-risk pancreatoduodenectomy. Results Of 994 patients, 333 (33.5%; median [IQR] age, 66 [58-72] years; 171 male [51.4%]) qualified as the LR-TP cohort. Reference values included blood loss (≤1000 mL), major complications (≤37%), 3-month postoperative mortality (<6%), and retrieved lymph nodes (≥29). Compared with TP with vascular resections, reference cutoffs were not met for major complications (51% vs LR-TP ≤37%) and 90-day mortality (11% vs LR-TP ≤6%). For TP due to high-risk anastomosis, failure to rescue rate (38% vs ≤6%) and 90-day mortality (11% vs LR-TP ≤6%) were not met. Compared with pancreatoduodenectomy, reference values for postoperative mortality were 3 times higher for LR-TP (≤2% vs ≤6%) and less for resected lymph nodes (≥16 vs ≥29). Conclusions and Relevance This case-control study provided global reference values for TP, indicating significantly higher postoperative morbidity and mortality compared with pancreatoduodenectomy. Perioperative morbidity of TP was especially increased in patients with vascular resections. These reference values can serve for quality control of pancreatic surgery.

Objective: To establish benchmark cutoffs for robotic liver resection (R-LR), encompassing both major and minor resections, and to determine the impact of patient selection on outcomes. Background: R-LR is a key advancement in minimally invasive liver surgery but lacks standardized benchmarks, especially for minor resections. While guidelines endorse R-LR, its role in optimizing outcomes remains unclear. This study establishes the first benchmarks for R-LR, enabling comparisons across surgical modalities and refining patient selection. Methods: This retrospective, multicenter study analyzed consecutive adult patients undergoing R-LR at 30 international centers (2020–2023). Benchmark centers had an annual case volume of ≥15 R-LR. Benchmark criteria included ASA ≤2, no major comorbidities, no prior liver resections, and Child-Pugh A status. Benchmark cutoffs for 14 key outcomes were set at the 50th and 75th percentiles of median values across benchmark centers. Multivariable logistic regression identified predictors of textbook outcomes. Results: Eighteen high-volume centers contributed 4028 cases with 2632 (65.3%) meeting benchmark criteria. Malignancy was the indication in 29.6%, most commonly hepatocellular carcinoma followed by colorectal liver metastases. Major liver resection was performed in 42.6%. The distribution of Iwate difficulty scores was low (25.4%), intermediate (53.9%), advanced (15.9%), and expert (4.9%). Benchmark cutoffs were established for minor and major resection, and stratified by Iwate low (0-3), intermediate (4-6) and high (7-12): Open conversion (≤6.5% minor, ≤10.5% major), major complications within 90 days (≤5.2% minor, ≤16.7% major), R1 resection (≤9.2% minor, ≤6.7% major). Benchmark cases performed at low-volume centers were able to achieve outcomes within the corresponding benchmark cutoffs. In fact, patient selection reflected by the proportion of benchmark patients, rather than case volume, was associated with textbook outcomes. Conclusions: This study defines R-LR benchmarks, emphasizing patient selection over center volume for optimal outcomes. Benchmark cutoffs guide training and support the expansion of R-LR.

Abstract Background Robotic Whipple holds the promise to overcome safety concerns associated with laparoscopy, paving the way for widespread implementation of minimal-invasive surgery in this complex procedure. However, randomized data comparing robot vs. open Whipple demonstrate more pancreas-specific complications and R1-resections in the robotic arm. Recent international consensus identified establishing benchmarks as critical to ensure safe adoption of the robot. Benchmarking is a validated quality improvement tool, enabling comparison of surgical performance. Aims The aim was to define benchmarks for outcome parameters in robotic Whipple. Methods We analyzed consecutive patients undergoing robotic Whipple from January 2020 until December 2023 in 11 centers across 4 continents, with a minimum one-year follow-up. Centers had to perform ≥15 cases/year and have mounted their learning curve. Benchmark criteria included benign or resectable malignant disease without neoadjuvant therapy, arterial resection, major co-morbidities, or significant previous abdominal surgery. Medians across centers represented benchmark cutoffs. Results Eleven centers performed 1’037 Whipple procedures, of which 603 (58%) were benchmark cases. One third (n=192) were pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) patients. Key benchmarks at 6 months included ≤1.2% mortality, ≤24.2% major complications, and ≤ 8.7 points Comprehensive Complication Index®. Pancreas-specific cutoffs included ≤13.0% postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) B/C and ≤3.4% post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage B/C, with 100% R0-resection and ≥19 harvested lymph nodes in PDAC patients. One-year actuarial overall and recurrence-free survival was 87% and 77%. In the entire cohort POPF B/C occurred in 16% (n=195). Independent POPF predictors included duct diameter ≤4mm (OR 1.79 95%CI [1.27-2.55]), anticoagulation (OR 3.68 95%CI [2.14-6.24]), and indication other than PDAC (OR 3.17, 95%CI [2.13-4.85]). Conclusion This study establishes benchmarks for key outcomes in robotic Whipple, demonstrating oncologic adequacy and morbidity comparable to open surgery. Risk factors for POPF in open surgery also hold true in the robotic approach.

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.

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.