Advertisement

Annals of Surgical Oncology

, Volume 21, Issue 12, pp 4014–4019 | Cite as

Defining the Learning Curve for Team-Based Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy

  • Paul J. Speicher
  • Daniel P. Nussbaum
  • Rebekah R. White
  • Sabino Zani
  • Paul J. Mosca
  • Dan G. BlazerIII
  • Bryan M. Clary
  • Theodore N. Pappas
  • Douglas S. Tyler
  • Alexander Perez
Pancreatic Tumors

Abstract

Background

The purpose of this study was to define the learning curves for laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) with and without laparoscopic reconstruction, using paired surgical teams consisting of advanced laparoscopic-trained surgeons and advanced oncologic-trained surgeons.

Methods

All patients undergoing PD without vein resection at a single institution were retrospectively analyzed. LPD was introduced by initially focusing on laparoscopic resection followed by open reconstruction (hybrid) for 18 months prior to attempting a totally LPD (TLPD) approach. Cases were compared with Chi square, Fisher’s exact test, and Kruskal–Wallis analysis of variance (ANOVA).

Results

Between March 2010 and June 2013, 140 PDs were completed at our institution, of which 56 (40 %) were attempted laparoscopically. In 31/56 procedures we planned to perform only the resection laparoscopically (hybrid), of which 7 (23 %) required premature conversion before completion of resection. Following the first 23 of these hybrid cases, a total of 25 TLPDs have been performed, of which there were no conversions to open. For all LPD, a significant reduction in operative times was identified following the first 10 patients (median 478.5 vs. 430.5 min; p = 0.01), approaching open PD levels. After approximately 50 cases, operative times and estimated blood loss were consistently lower than those for open PD.

Conclusions

In our experience of building an LPD program, the initial ten cases represent the biggest hurdle with respect to operative times. For an experienced teaching center using a staged and team-based approach, LPD appears to offer meaningful reductions in operative time and blood loss within the first 50 cases.

Keywords

Operative Time Learning Curve Estimate Blood Loss Open Reconstruction Laparoscopic Dissection 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Disclosure

Paul J. Speicher, Daniel P. Nussbaum, Rebekah R. White, Sabino Zani, Paul J. Mosca, Dan G. Blazer III, Bryan M. Clary, Theodore N. Pappas, Douglas S. Tyler, and Alexander Perez report no relevant conflicts of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Gagner M, Pomp A. Laparoscopic pylorus-preserving pancreatoduodenectomy. Surg Endosc. 1994;8:408–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fleshman J, Sargent DJ, Green E, Anvari M, Stryker SJ, Beart RW, et al. Laparoscopic colectomy for cancer is not inferior to open surgery based on 5-year data from the COST Study Group trial. Ann Surg. 2007;246:655–62; discussion 62-4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Frazee RC, Roberts JW, Symmonds RE, Snyder SK, Hendricks JC, Smith RW, et al. A prospective randomized trial comparing open versus laparoscopic appendectomy. Ann Surg. 1994;219:725–8; discussion 8-31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Clinical Outcomes of Surgical Therapy Study Group. A comparison of laparoscopically assisted and open colectomy for colon cancer. N Engl J Med. 2004;350:2050–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lacy AM, Delgado S, Castells A, Prins Ha, Arroyo V, Ibarzabal A, et al. (2008) The long-term results of a randomized clinical trial of laparoscopy-assisted versus open surgery for colon cancer. Ann Surg. 248:1–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Stoker DL, Spiegelhalter DJ, Singh R, Wellwood JM. Laparoscopic versus open inguinal hernia repair: randomised prospective trial. Lancet. 1994;343:1243–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Asbun HJ, Stauffer JA. Laparoscopic vs open pancreaticoduodenectomy: overall outcomes and severity of complications using the accordion severity grading system. J Am Coll Surg. 2012;215:810–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Buchs NC, Addeo P, Bianco FM, Ayloo S, Benedetti E, Giulianotti PC. Robotic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy: a comparative study at a single institution. World J Surg. 2011;35:2739–46.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chalikonda S, Aguilar-Saavedra JR, Walsh RM. Laparoscopic robotic-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy: a case-matched comparison with open resection. Surg Endosc. 2012;26:2397–402.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lai ECH, Yang GPC, Tang CN. Robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy: a comparative study. Int J Surg. 2012;10:475–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zhou N-X, Chen J-Z, Liu Q, Zhang X, Wang Z, Ren S, et al. Outcomes of pancreatoduodenectomy with robotic surgery versus open surgery. Int J Med Robot. 2011;7:131–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zureikat AH, Breaux JA, Steel JL, Hughes SJ. Can laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy be safely implemented? J Gastrointest Surg. 2011;15:1151–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Correa-Gallego C, Dinkelspiel HE, Sulimanoff I, Fisher S, Viñuela EF, Kingham TP, et al. Minimally-invasive vs open pancreaticoduodenectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Coll Surg. 2014;218:129–39.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hernandez JM, Dimou F, Weber J, Almhanna K, Hoffe S, Shridhar R, et al. Defining the learning curve for robotic-assisted esophagogastrectomy. J Gastrointest Surg. 2013;17:1346–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul J. Speicher
    • 1
  • Daniel P. Nussbaum
    • 1
  • Rebekah R. White
    • 1
  • Sabino Zani
    • 1
  • Paul J. Mosca
    • 1
  • Dan G. BlazerIII
    • 1
  • Bryan M. Clary
    • 1
  • Theodore N. Pappas
    • 1
  • Douglas S. Tyler
    • 1
  • Alexander Perez
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of SurgeryDuke University Medical CenterDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations