Learning curves in minimally invasive pancreatic surgery: a systematic review (2022)

Type of publication:Systematic Review

Author(s):Fung, Gayle; Sha, Menazir; Kunduzi, Basir; Froghi, Farid; *Rehman, Saad; Froghi, Saied

Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery. 407(6) (pp 2217-2232), 2022. Date of Publication: September 2022.

Abstract:BACKGROUND The learning curve of new surgical procedures has implications for the education, evaluation and subsequent adoption. There is currently no standardised surgical training for those willing to make their first attempts at minimally invasive pancreatic surgery. This study aims to ascertain the learning curve in minimally invasive pancreatic surgery.
METHODS A systematic search of PubMed, Embase and Web of Science was performed up to March 2021. Studies investigating the number of cases needed to achieve author-declared competency in minimally invasive pancreatic surgery were included.
RESULTS In total, 31 original studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria with 2682 patient outcomes being analysed. From these studies, the median learning curve for distal pancreatectomy was reported to have been achieved in 17 cases (10-30) and 23.5 cases (7-40) for laparoscopic and robotic approach respectively. The median learning curve for pancreaticoduodenectomy was reported to have been achieved at 30 cases (4-60) and 36.5 cases (20-80) for a laparoscopic and robotic approach respectively. Mean operative times and estimated blood loss improved in all four surgical procedural groups. Heterogeneity was demonstrated when factoring in the level of surgeon's experience and patient's demographic.
CONCLUSIONS There is currently no gold standard in the evaluation of a learning curve. As a result, derivations are difficult to utilise clinically. Existing literature can serve as a guide for current trainees. More work needs to be done to standardise learning curve assessment in a patient-centred manner.

Link to full-text (open access - no password required)

Surgery for constipation: systematic review and practice recommendations: Results II: Hitching procedures for the rectum (2017)

Type of publication:
Systematic Review

Grossi U.; Knowles C.H.; Mason J.; *Lacy-Colson J.; Brown S.R.; Campbell K.; Chapman M.; Clarke A.; Cruickshank

Colorectal Disease; Sep 2017; vol. 19 ; p. 37-48

Aim: To assess the outcomes of rectal suspension procedures (forms of rectopexy) in adults with chronic constipation. Method: Standardised methods and reporting of benefits and harms were used for all Capacity reviews that closely adhered to PRISMA 2016 guidance. Main conclusions were presented as summary evidence statements with a summative Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (2009) level. Results: Eighteen articles were identified, providing data on outcomes in 1238 patients. All studies reported only on laparoscopic approaches. Length of procedures ranged between 1.5 to 3.5 h, and length of stay between 4 to 5 days. Data on harms were inconsistently reported and heterogeneous, making estimates of harm tentative and imprecise. Morbidity rates ranged between 5-15%, with mesh complications accounting for 0.5% of patients overall. No mortality was reported after any procedures in a total of 1044 patients. Although inconsistently reported, good or satisfactory outcome occurred in 83% (74-91%) of patients; 86% (20-97%) of patients reported improvements in constipation after laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR). About 2-7% of patients developed anatomical recurrence. Patient selection was inconsistently documented. As most common indication, high grade rectal intussusception was corrected in 80-100% of cases after robotic or LVMR. Healing of prolapse-associated solitary rectal ulcer syndrome occurred in around 80% of patients after LVMR.
Conclusion: Evidence supporting rectal suspension procedures is currently derived from poor quality studies. Methodologically robust trials are needed to inform future clinical decision making.